Skip to main content

Full text of "Edison Microfilm Reel 184"

See other formats


0/  £dw>oru  e\hpeM> 


A  SELECTIVE  MICROFILM  EDITION 

PART  IV 
(1899-1910) 


Thomas  E.  Jeffrey 
Lisa  Gitelman 
Gregory  Jankunis 
David  W.  Hutchings 
Leslie  Fields 


Theresa  M.  Collins 
Gregory  Field 
Aido  E.  Salerno 
Karen  A.  Detig 
Lorie  Stock 


Robert  Rosenberg 
Director  and  Editor 


Sponsors 

Rutgers,  The  State  University  Of  New  Jersey 
National  Park  Service,  Edison  National  Historic  Site 
New  Jersey  Historical  Commission 
Smithsonian  Institution 


University  Publications  of  America 
Bethesda,  MD 
1999 


Edison  signature  used  with  permission  ofMcGraw-Edison  Con 


Thomas  A.  Edison  Papers 


at 

Rutgers,  The  State  University 
endorsed  by 

National  Historical  Publications  and  Records  Commission 
18  June  1981 

Copyright  ©  1999  by  Rutgers,  The  State  University 

All  rights  reserved.  No  part  ol  this  publication  including  any  portion  of  the  guide  and  index  or  of 
the  microfilm  may  be  reproduced,  stored  hi  a  retrieval  system,  or  transmitted  in  any  form  by  any 
means — graphic,  electronic,  mechanical,  or  chemical,  includingphotocopying,  recordingor  taping, 
or  information  storage  and  retrieval  systems— without  written  permission  of  Rutgers,  The  State 
University,  New  Brunswick,  New  Jersey. 

The  original  documents  in  this  edition  are  from  the  archives  at  the  Edison  National  Historic  Site 
at  West  Orange,  New  Jersey. 

ISBN  0-89093-703-6 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON  PAPERS 


Robert  A.  Rosenberg 
Director  ami  Editor 

Thomas  E.  Jeffrey 
Associate  Director  and  Coeditor 

Paul  B.  Israel 

Managing  Editor,  Book  Edition 
Helen  Endick 

Assistant  Director  for  Administration 


Associate  Editors 
Theresa  M.  Collins 
Lisa  Gitelman 
Keith  A.  Nier 

Research  Associates 

Gregory  Jankunis 
Lorie  Stock 


Assistant  Editors 
Louis  Carlat 
Aldo  E.  Salerno 


Secretary 
Grace  Kurkowski 


Student  Assistants 


Amy  Cohen 
Bethany  Jankunis 
Laura  Konrad 
Vishal  Nayak 


Jessica  Rosenberg 
Stacey  Saelg 
Wojtek  Szymkowiak 
Matthew  Wosniak 


BOARD  OF  SPONSORS 


Rutgers,  The  State  University  of  New 
Jersey 

Francis  L.  Lawrence 
Joseph  J.  Seneca 
Richard  F.  Foley 
David  M.  Oshinsky 
New  Jersey  Historical  Commission 
Howard  L.  Green 


National  Park  Service 
John  Maounis 
Maryanne  Gerbauckas 
Roger  Durham 
George  Tselos 
Smithsonian  Institution 
Bernard  Finn 
Arthur  P.  Moiella 


EDITORIAL  ADVISORY  BOARD 

James  Brittain,  Georgia  Institute  of  Technology 
R.  Frank  Colson,  University  of  Southampton 
Louis  Galambos,  Johns  Hopkins  University 
Susan  Hockey,  University  of  Alberta 
Thomas  Parke  Hughes,  University  of  Pennsylvania 
Peter  Robinson,  Oxford  University 

Philip  Scranton,  Georgia  Institute  of  Teclmology/Hagiey  Museum  and  Library 
Merritt  Roe  Smith,  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology 


FINANCIAL  CONTRIBUTORS 


PRIVATE  FOUNDATIONS 
Tlie  Alfred  P.  Sloan  Foundation 
Charles  Edison  Fund 
The  Hyde  and  Watson  Foundation 
National  Trust  for  the  Humanities 
Geraldine  R.  Dodge  Foundation 


PUBLIC  FOUNDATIONS 
National  Science  Foundation 
National  Endowment  for  the 
Humanities 

National  Historical  Publications  and 
Records  Commission 


PRIVATE  CORPORATIONS  AND  INDIVIDUALS 
Alabama  Power  Company  IMO  Industries 


Anonymous 

AT&T 

Atlantic  Electric 

Association  of  Edison  Illuminating 
Companies 

Battelle  Memorial  Institute 
The  Boston  Edison  Foundation 
Cabot  Corporation  Foundation,  Inc. 
Carolina  Power  &  Light  Company 
Consolidated  Edison  Company  of  New 
York,  Inc. 

Consumers  Power  Company 
Cooper  Industries 
Corning  Incorporated 
Duke  Power  Company 
Entergy  Corporation  (Middle  South 
Electric  System) 

Exxon  Corporation 

Florida  Power  &  Light  Company 

General  Electric  Foundation 

Gould  Inc.  Foundation 

Gulf  States  Utilities  Company 

David  and  Nina  Heitz 

Hess  Foundation,  Inc. 

Idaho  Power  Company 


International  Brotherhood  of  Electrical 
Workers 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  Stanley  H.  ICatz 
Matsushita  Electric  Industrial  Co.,  Ltd. 
Midwest  Resources,  Inc. 

Minnesota  Power 
New  Jersey  Bell 
New  York  State  Electric  &  Gas 
Corporation 

Nortli  American  Philips  Corporation 
Philadelphia  Electric  Company 
Philips  Lighting  B.V. 

Public  Service  Electric  and  Gas  Company 

RCA  Corporation 

Robert  Bosch  GmbH 

Rochester  Gas  and  Electric  Corporation 

San  Diego  Gas  and  Electric 

Savannah  Electric  and  Power  Company 

Scherhig-Plough  Foundation 

Texas  Utilities  Company 

Thomas  &  Betts  Corporation 

Thomson  Grand  Public 

Transamerica  Deluvoi  Inc. 

Westinghouse  Foundation 
Wisconsin  Public  Service  Corporation 


A  Note  on  the  Sources 

The  pages  which  have  been 
filmed  are  the  best  copies 
available.  Every  technical 
effort  possible  has  been 
made  to  ensure  legibility. 


PUBLICATION  AND  MICROFILM 
COPYING  RESTRICTIONS 


Reel  duplication  of  the  whole  or  of 
any  part  of  this  film  is  prohibited. 
In  lieu  of  transcripts,  however, 
enlarged  photocopies  of  selected 
items  contained  on  these  reels 
may  be  made  in  order  to  facilitate 
research. 


r 


^■/£>  J-6 


petition. 


Zo  tbe  Commissioner  of  [patents : 

your  petitioneri  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  oitizen  of  the  United 
States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park  in  the  County  of  Ebbo*  and 
State  of  New  Jersey,  whose  post  offloe  addrecsis  Orange,  Essex 
County,  New  Jersey, 

PRAYS  THAT  LETTERS  PATENT  MAY  BE  GRANTED  TO  HIM  FOR  THE 

REVERSIBLE  GALVANIC  BATTERIES 


IMPROVEMENT  IN 


I  SPECIFICATION. 

0  ALL  WHOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN: 

3e  It  known  that  I,  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  citizen  of 
le  United  States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park  in  the  County 
’  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey,  have  invented  a  certain 
sw  and  useful  IMPROVEMENT  IN  REVERSIBLE  GALVANIC  BATTERIES 
!ase  No.  1056),  of  which  the  following  is  a  specification: 

My  invention  relates  to  improvements  in  reversible 
so-called  storage  batteries,  and  my  object  is  to  produce 
reversible  galvanic  cell  of  great  permanency  and  of  re- 
rkably  light  weight  per  unit  of  energy. 

In  my  application  for  Letters  Patent  filed  October 
3t.,  1900,  Serial  No.  34,994,  I  describe  an  improved  re- 
rsible  galvanic  cell  wherein  the  metals  cadmium  and  copper 
3  employed  as  the  elements  in  an  alkaline  electrolyte,  and 
means  of  which  I  secured  a  very  permanent  cell,  one 
srein  the  Initial  and  final  states  of  the  electrolyte  are 
!  same,  and  finally  one  which  was  capable  of  storing  a 
iater  amount  of  energy  per  pound  of  cell  than  batteries 
imerc tally  used  before  that  time. 

My  present  invention  is  designed  to  further  lighten 
weight  of  the  cell  in  comparison  to  the  stored  energy, 
to  deliver  the  energy  to  the  exterior  circuit  at  a  high- 
rate  . 

In  the  alkaline  zincate  type  of  battery  as  coramer- 
Lly  used,  so  far  as  I  know,  copper  oxide  has  heretofore 
i  used  exclusively  as  the  oxygen-furnishing  element  when 
battery  is  discharged,  the  copper  being  reduced  to  the 
illio  state.  The  only  other  elements  which  have  been 


suggested  and  would  be  available  as  substitutes  for  copper 
in  these  batteries,  have  been  those  lower  in  the  electro¬ 
lytic  series,  such  as  mercury  and  silver,  but  so  far  as  I 
know,  these  metals  have  not  been  satisfactorily  oricommer- 
cially  utilized  on  account  of  the  difficulties  arising  from 
their  application  in  alkaline  electrolytes  as  well  as  be¬ 
cause  of  their  expense,  especially  in  regard  to  silver, 
which  metal  possesses  the  further  disadvantage  of  being 
quite  soluble  in  the  electrolyte,  when  subjected  to  oxida¬ 
tion. 

I  have  sought,  by  a  great  many  experiments,  for  an 
element  or  compound  capable  of  being  used  in  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  whose  heat  of  formation  of  its  oxide  should 
be  as  low  or  lower  than  that  of  mercury,  and  in  this  I  have 
been  successful,  the  result  being  the  discovery  of  an  ele¬ 
ment  for  furnishing  the  oxygen  to  the  oxidizable  element  on 

Es  charge  with  even  greater  freedom  than  oxide  of  mercury, 
ile  at  the  same  time  the  new  element  is  less  expensive, 
of  less  weight,  is  of  greater  permanency,  and  finally  is 
of  greater  insolubility  in  the  electrolyte.  I  have  also 
sought,  by  experiment,  for  an  element  superior  to  cadmium 
as  the  oxidizable  element  on  discharge,  with  the  objects  in 
view  of  further  reducing  the  weight  and  cost  of  thenell, 
and  I  have  discovered  an  element  for  the  purpose  possessing 
these  desirable  characteristics.  As  a  result,  a  reversi¬ 
ble  galvanic  cell  equipped  with  the  new  elements  is  of  great 
permanence,  is  relatively  light  and  inexpensive,  and  is  of 
great  power.  These  elements  are,  as  stated,  preferably 
used  in  the  same, cell,  but  obviously  the  oxygen-furnishing 
sleraent  may  be  employed  in  connection  with,  other  oxidizable 
elements ,  while  the  new  oxidizable  element  may  be  employed 
in  connection  with  other  oxygen-furnishing  elements. 

The  elements  are 


alsfl. .preferably  oarried  or  support- 


Ied  by  hollow  perforated  plates,  forming  receptacles  or  pock¬ 
ets,  which  are  illustrated  in  the  accompanying  drawings  form¬ 
ing  part  of  this  specification  and  in  which  figure  1  is  a 
face  view  of  one  of  the  plates  hawing  three  pockets  or  re¬ 
ceptacles,  showing  the  front  wall  partly  broken  away;  fig¬ 
ure  2  is  a  section  on  the  line  2—2  of  figure  1;  figure  3 
is  a  plan,  showing  two  of  the  plates  forming  a  single  com¬ 
bination;  and  figure  4  an  enlarged  detailed  section. 

In  all  of  the  above  views,  corresponding  parts  are 
represented  by  the  same  numerals  of  reference. 

Each  plate  is  formed  with  two  walls  1  and  2  con¬ 
structed  preferably  of  a  single  continuous  sheet  made  pref¬ 
erably  of  very  thin  sheet  nickel,  say  about  .005  of  an  inch 
in  thickness,  and  bent  at  its  bottom  around  a  horizontal 
frame  3  from  which  extend:,  the  vertical  spacing  frames  4,  4, 
to  all  of  which  frames  the  sheet  is  secured  by  means  of 
nickel  rivets,  as  shown,  to  form  a  strong,  rigid,  hollow 
plate  with  pockets  or  receptacles  between  the  vertical  frames 


14,  4.  The  walls  1  and  2  of  the  plate,  as  shown,  are  per¬ 
forated  with  small  holes  arranged  very  closely  together  and 
each  about  .015  of  an  inch  in  diameter.  I  prefer  to,  use 
nickel  in  the  construction  of  the  plates,  since  that  metal 
is  not  oxidizable  by  electric  oxidation  in  an  alkaline  so¬ 
lution.  Iron,  on  the  other  hand,  is  slightly  oxidized  un¬ 
der  these  conditions  and  is  not  so  desirable,  but  if  very 
carefully  and  perfectly  plated  with  nickel,  it  may  be  used 
satisfactorily  for  the  construction  of  either  the  plates  or 
the  frames.  Obviously  the  frames  3  and  4  may  be,  and  in 
some  instances  preferably  are,  constructed  of  hard  rubber 
or  other  inert  material,  to  which  the  perforated  sheet  is 
riveted,  as  explained.  Secured  to  one  or  both  of  the  sides 
of  the  plate  are  a  number  of  insulated  spacing  blocks  5,  5, 


I  to  prevent  adjacent  plates  from  touching  when  immersed  in 
the  electrolyte. 


In  the  manufacture  of  my  : 


r  oxidizable  element  for 


use  in  a  rever Bible  galvanic  cella  r  first  preferably  take 
monosulphide  of  iron  and  reduce  it  by  a  crushing  operation 
until  the  particles  thereof  may  be  passed  through  a  screen 
having  about  40,000  openings  per  square  inoh,  and  I  inti¬ 
mately  mix  about  eight  parts  by  weight  of  the  powdered  mono¬ 
sulphide  with  about  two  parts  by  weight  of  flake  graphite 
of  a  size  considerably  larger  than  the  perforations  in  the 
wallB  of  the  pockets  or  receptacles.  Pinks  graphite  be¬ 
ing  exceedingly  thin  and  of  large  area  gives. an  extensive 
conducting  surface  in  proportion  to  its  bulk  and  weight. 
This  mixture  is  then  moistened  with  a  twenty-percent  solu¬ 
tion  of  potasslo  hydroxide,  and  the  dampened  mass  is  paoked 
into  the  pockets  or  receptacles  of  the  proper  plates  by  a 
suitable  tamping  tool.  Owing  to  the  want  of  flexibility 
of  the  graphite,  the  mixture  paokB  to  a  hard  porpue  mass.' 
The  effect  of  electrolytic  gassing  therefore  does  not  dis¬ 
integrate  the  mass  as  a  whole  When  properly  compressed, 
x, 

^After  eaoh  pocket  or  reoeptaole  has  been, tightly  paoked 
with  the  mass  almost  to  its  top,  a  wad  of, asbestos  fiber  6 
about  a  quarter  of  an  inoh  in  thickness  is  introduced  into- 
the  pocket  or  reoeptaole  above  the  mass,  and  on  top  of  this 
packing  is  placed  a  strip  of  sheet  niokel  7  entirely  cover¬ 
ing  the  asbestos  and  filling  the  mouth  of  the  pooket,  which, 
atrip  is  permanently  Beoured  in  position  by  niokel  wireB  8 
threaded  through  the  openings  near  the  top  of  the  pooket, 
as  shown  particularly  in  figure  2.  The  element  thus  form¬ 
ed  iS  subjected  to.  electrolytic  oxidization  in  a  solution 
of  potassio  hydroxide,  whereby  sulphur  will  be  set  free/and 
combining  with  the  alkali  forms  a  sulphide  of  potassium:; 


which  diffuses  out  of  the  mass,  while  the  iron  ie  converted 
to  a  ferrous  oxide  thereof.  This  diffusion  of  the  alka¬ 
line  sulphide  out  of  the  plate  is  hastened  and  facilitated 
hy  subjecting  the  contents  of  the  plate  to  alternate  oxidiza¬ 
tion  and  reduction  by  alternately  reversing  the  oxidizing 
ourrent,  and  by  several  of  these  operations  the  whole  of  the 
Bulphur  will  be.  eliminated  and  the  element  will  be  ready 
for  use  after  the  iron  haB  been  reduced  to  the.metallio 
state.  Since  iron  does  not  decompose  water,  there  will 
obviously  be  no  loool  action  between  it  and  the  graphite. 

The  oxide  formed  from  the  sulphide  increases  in  bulk,  and 
being  intermediately  mixed  with  the  graphite,  produces  oon? 
siderable  pressure  on  the  walls  of  the  plate,  which  prevents 
any  disturbance  of  the  initial  state  of  the  mass  even  when 
it  is  subjected  to  strong  gassing  within  the  pores  by  over¬ 
charging  the  element  electrioally.  The  object  of  using  the 
monosulphide  is  to  secure  the  greatest  amount  of  iron  oxide 
in  the  smallest  space  and  in  a  form  oapable  of  being  reduced 
to  the  metallic  state  eleotrolytioally. 

My  attempts  to  utilize  iron  as  the  oxidizable  ele¬ 
ment  in  an  alkaline  reversible  battery  were  for  a  long  time-',; 
frustrated  by  the  facts,  determined  only  after., exhaustive1 
experiments,  that  dried  oxides  of  iron  were  not  reducible 
to  any  extent  by  the  ourrent;  that  spongy  iron  reduoed  by 
hydrogen  from  different  iron  Balts  was  not  oxidizable  t0 
considerable  extent  by  the  current;  that  the  hydrates  of 
iron  were  very  bulky  and  difficult  of  use  without  drying,  fJ 
which  operation  off eoted  some  obscure  ohange  therein  to 
render  them  nearly  inert  in  the  presence  of  the  reduo ing. 
current;  that  bulky  ferric  oxide  was  hot  oapable  of  any 
considerable  reduction  by  the  ourrent;  and  finally  that 
ferrous  oxide  though  easily  reducible  was  very  diffiouli  to^ 

“P-  .  ■  'hM I 


I  prepare  on  aooount  of  atmoBpherio  oxidation.  The  formation 
of  the  ferrous  oxide  In  the  first  inBtanoe  within  the  pock- 
.e.tB_or._reoeptacleB  did  away  with  the  objections  due  to  the 
bulk  of  the  hydrates,  while  the  oxide  thus  formed  is  per¬ 
fectly  reducible  by  the  ourront.  Instead  of  forming  the 
oxide  in  this  way  by  oxidizing  the  monosulphide  in  an  alka¬ 
line  solution,  it  v/ill  be  obvious  that  |salts  of  iron,  like 
ferrous  ohloride,  may  be  paoked  with  the  graphite  and  when 
plaoed  in  on  alkaline  solution  form  ohloride  of  the  alkali 
and  ferrous  oxide  of  iron,  the  alkaline  ohloride.  diffusing 
out  of  the  mass.  The  results,  however,  are  not  ed  good  os 
when  the  sulphide  of  iron  is  used,  since  the  quantity  of 
finely  divided  iron  produoed  thereby  is  considerably  less' 
and  is  also  less  porous,  offering  therefore  a  reduced  op¬ 
portunity  for  the  solution  to  penetrate  the  maSB,  and  low- 
ering  in  oonsequenoe  its  current-conductingcapacity.  Met¬ 
allic  iron,  even  when  finely  divided  as  produoed  by  electro- 
lytio  reduotion,  does  not  of  itself  oxidize  in  solutions  of 
the  fixed  aikalies,  and  the  oxide  of  iron  is  not  appreciably 
soluble.  Compact,  dense,  or  non-porous  iron,  i..  e.  iron 
having  relatively  large  partioles,  when  Bubjeoted  to  a 
powerful  electrolytic  oxidation,  forms  a  soluble  ferrate  of 
the  alkali  and  dissolves  in  the  electrolyte.  On  the  other 
hand,  finely  divided  iron  obtained  as  described,  when  sub¬ 
jected  to  eleotrolytio  oxidation,  does  not  form  a  soluble 
ferrate  but  1b  oonverted  into  the  insoluble  ferrous  oxide. 

My  improved  oxidizable  element  is  therefore  absolutely  per¬ 
manent,  so  that  in  the  operation  of  the  battery,  the  elec¬ 
trolyte  is  not  ohanged  at  any  stage  of  the  working,  and  ab¬ 
solutely  no  deterioration  of  the  iron  element  takes  plaoe.  /  > 
Having  described  the  advantages  and  characteristics 
of,  and  the  preferred  manner  of  making,  the  oxidizable  ele- 


-6- 


ment,  reference  will  now  be  made  to  the  preferred  oxygen- 
furniehing  or  storing  element  of  the  cell. 

I  have  discovered  by  experiment  that  the  lower 
oxides  of  nickel  and  oobalt,  when  in  contact  with  a  conduct¬ 
or  in  an  alkaline  solution,  oan  be  almost  wholly  raised 
from  the  lower  to  a  higher  stage  of  oxidation  eleotrolyti- 
cally  and  that  those,  higher  oxides  revert  to  a  lower  stage 
by  reduction  with  extreme  'case,  and  availing  myself  of  this 
fact,  I  have  constructed  an  oxygen-storing  element  capable 
of  greater  capacity,  of  less  we ight ,  and  of  higher  perma- 
nenoe  than  any  electrode  for  the  purpose  which,  so  far  as  1 
know,  has  heretofore  been  applied.  Neither  the  oxide  of 
niokel  nor  of  oobalt  is  appreciably  soluble  in  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  and  both  niokel  and  oobalt  give  nearly  the  some 
voltage  in  use,  but  slnoe  nickel' is  less  expensive  than  co¬ 
balt,  I  prefer  to  use  the  former  element  for  the  purpose. 

The  preferred  process  of  making  the  oxygen-storing 
element  consists  in  first  preoipitatlng  either  the  monoxide 
or  black  hydrated  dioxide  of  the  metal,  say  niokel,  in  the 
usual  way,  washing  the  preoipitate  free  from  the  products 
of  the  reaction,  filtering  off  the  liquid  and  drying  the 
preoipltatqi  The  resulting  dried  hydrated  oxide  is  then 
powdered  very  fine  and  is  ready  for  use.  Either  oxide  may 
be  used  with  the  same  results.  The  process  above  outlined 
applies  to  cobalt  as  well  as  to  niokel.  About  seven 

parts  by  weight  of  the  finely  powdered  hydrate  and  three 
parts  by  weight  of  flake  graphite  are  then  intimately  mixed, 
and  moistened  with  a  small  quantity  of  a  strong  solution  .of 
potass i'o  hydroxide  so  as  to  dampen  the  mass,  whioh  is  then 
Inserted  in  the  pockets. or  reooptaoles  of  the  proper  plates 
in  small  quantities  at  a  time  and  thoroughly  tamped  at  e&oh 
accession.  Finally  the  mass : Is  oovered  with'  a  layer  of 
''  -7--  '  V' 


asbestos,  held  in  plaoe  by  a  plate  of  nickel  secured  in 
position  by  niokel  wires,  as  I  have  described  in  explaining 
the  makeup  of  the  oxidizable  element.  The  plates,  the 
pookets  of  whioh  are  thus  supplied  with  the  mixture  of  the 
hydrated  oxide  and  graphite,  are  then  immersed  in  a  solu¬ 
tion  of  potasslo  hydroxide  in  water  and  Bubjeated  for  a  con¬ 
siderable  time,  to  an  oxidizing  current  of  about  fifty  milam- 
peres  per  square  inch  of  surface,  during  whioh  the  oxide  is 
either  raised  to  a  higher  stage  of  oxidation  than  the  black 
oxide  HigOg  or  else  aots  as  an  absorber  of  oxygen  in  some 
manner  unknown  to  me.  "Whatever  the  action  may  be,  the  oxide 
so  treated  acts  as  a  most  efficient  oxygen-storing  element 
for  commercial  use  in  a  galvanic  battery. 

The  object  of  employing  graphite,  which  iB  not  af¬ 
fected  by  electrolytic  oxidation,  is  to  offer  a  great  ex¬ 
tent  of  surfaoe  against  whioh  the  whole  of  the  oxide  is  in 
oontaot,  a  large  conducting  surface  being  necessary  sinoe 
the  eleotrolytic  reduction  and  oxidation  for  praotioal  pur¬ 
poses  only  extend  a  small  distance  from  the  conducting  sur¬ 
faoe  against  whioh  the  oxide  is  in  oontaot.  This  is  ad¬ 
mirably  effected  by  the  use  of  graphite  in  its.  mioaoeous 
fora,  the  proportions  indicated  being  Buoh  as  to  practical¬ 
ly  insure  that  the  eleotrolytic  aotion  need  not  penetrate  a 
greater  diBtanoe  from  the  oontaot  surfaoe  than  the  thick¬ 
ness  of  a  single  particle  of  the  powdered  oxide.  Further¬ 

more*  there  is  no  local  aotion  between  the  nickel  or  oobalt 
oxides  and  the  graphite. 

The  reason  Why  niokel  hydrate  is  preferably  used  in¬ 
stead  of  other  compounds  of  nickel,  is  that  the  metal  itself, 
when  finely  divided  (as  obtained  by  reducing  a  niokel  com¬ 
pound  by  hydrogen  or  electrolysis),  is  not  oxidisable  to 
any  considerable  extent  when  subjected  to  eleotrolytlo  oxi- 


iation  in  an  alkaline  solution.  The  sulphide  of  nickel  is 
not  decomposed  by  eleotrolyBis  under  the  conditions  of  bat¬ 
tery  v/ortc,  and  the  sulphide  of  cobalt  only  imperfectly; 
tienoe  the  hydrates  are  the  moBt  available  compounds  for  use, 
aince  they  do  not  become  inert  to  the  same  extent  as  hy¬ 
drates  of  the  oxides  of  iron  after  drying,  they  are  easily 
prepared,  and  by  absorbing  the  solution  they  swell  within 
the  pooketB  or  receptaoles  so  as  to  insure  Intimate  contact 
and  stability.  During  the  charging  of  the  cell,  the  ab¬ 
sorption  of  oxygen  by  the  oxide  of  niokel  or  cobalt  causes 
the  oxide  to  further  swell  and  bulge  the  pookets  or  recep¬ 
taoles  outwardly,  and  on  discharge  a  proportionate  contrac¬ 
tion  takes  place.  In  order  that  the  walls  of  tho  pockets 
or  receptacles  my  always  maintain  the  desirable  intimate 
contact  with  the  active  material,  tho  pookets  are  as  stated 
made  of  some  highly  elastio  metal,  such  as  hard  rolled  Bhoet 
niokel,  so  that  at  eaoh  contraction  of  the  mass  the  pocket 
walls  will  by  their  elasticity  keep  in  oontact  therewith. 

I  am  aware  that  in  British  patent  Ho.  15,370  of 
1899  to  Miohalowaky,  the  patentee  suggestsiin  a  zino  alkali 
storage  battery,  the  use  of  the  anhydrous  black  oxide  of 
niokel  (HigOj)  as  a  depolarizer,  and  describes  prooesses 
for  making  the  same  by  heat  reactions.  I  have  ascertained 
by  experiment  that  the  prooeBses  so  suggested  are  inopera¬ 
tive,  and  that  the  oxide  sought  for,  if  obtained,  would  be 
ineffective  for  the  purpose.  The  black  oxide  of  niokel 
(HlgOg)  obtained  in  any  manner  known  to  me  does  not  of  it¬ 
self  act  as  a  depolarizer  to  any  extent  with  aino  in  a  rever¬ 
sible  galvanic  battery  using  an  alkaline  solution,  as  the 
patentee  state*;  and  when  this  oxide  is  formed  by  heat  re¬ 
actions,  X  find  that  when  subjected  to  ole otrloal  oxidation 
to  raise  it  to  a  higher  state  or  to  alter  its  oapooity  for 


I  assorting  oxygen,  it  ie  nearly  inert,  and  does  not  absorb  oxlr. 
gen  to  any  practical  extent  like  the-  hydrated  oxides. 

Having  constructed  the  two  elements  of  the  battery 

as  above  explained,  they  are  preferably  utilized  together 
in  a  solution  of  twenty-five  percent  of  potassio  hydroxide 
in  water,  and  the  ooll  ie  ready  for  ubo,  the  iron  being  in 
metallic  fora  and  the  niokel  or  cobalt  oxide  raised  to  its 
higher  stage. 


Owing  to  several  obsoure  roaotlons  which  take  plaoe 
when  the  battery  is  discharged,  and  also  to  a  change  of  re- 
sistanoe  within  the  electrodes,  the  voltage  is  Variable, 
but  the  average  voltage  over  the  whole  disoharge  is  about 
1  volt,  rising  as  high  as  1.32  volts  and  sometimes  higher 
when  freshly  charged. 

Ify  improved  battery  oan  be  over-charged,  fully  dis¬ 
charged,  or  even  reversed  and  charged  in  the  opposite  direc¬ 
tion  without  any  injury.  Over-gassing  does  not  disturb 
the  initial  state  of  the  materials  in  the  pookets,  all  the 
ingredients  are  insoluble,  the  supporting  plates  are  unat- 
taoked  by  electrolytic  oxidation,  and  the  whole  operation 
is  independent  of  the  strength  of  the  solution,  so  that  the 
battery  is  of  great  permanenoe,  while  at  the  same  time  more 


energy  will  be  stored  per  unit  of  weight  than  with  any  per- 
nanent  praotioal  combination  heretofore  suggested. 

I  have  oonBtruoted  a  battery  as  above  described 
tfiloh  gives  an  available  storage  capacity  of  one  horse 
power  hour  for  73  pounds  weight,  but  it  may  be  made  lighter 
rithout  destroying  its  permanent  oharaoter. 

The  specific  magnetio  metals  are  iron,  niokel  and 

>obalt. 

By-  the  express ion"oxide  of  a  specific  magnetic  met- 
a  other  than  iron"  as  employed  in  my  olaias,  I  mean  oxide- 
it  niokel,  oxide  of  cobalt  or  a  combination  of  such, oxides. 


ly  the  use  of  that  expression  it  is  my  purpose  to  embrace 
-10- 


and  include  ganerioally  both  of  these  utillzable  oxides, 
but  I  shall  also  specifically  elate  oxide  of  nickel  heroin, 
aud  will  specifically  elate  oxide  of  cobalt  in  a  separate 
concurrent  application. 

Having  now  described  my  invention,  what  I  elate  as 
new  and  desire  to  secure  by  Letters  Patent  is  us  follows 
1.  An  active  element  f or  an  alkaline  reversible 

ft-'  c  iHsi.  ' 

galvanic  battery,  comprising  on-elcotrode  and  a  hydrated 

oxide  of  &  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  carried 

<■ 

by  said  electrode,  substantially  as  set  forth, 

3.  An  active  element  for  an  alkalihe  reversible, 
gal  vail  io  battery,  comprising  an-eleotro'de,  aT.  hydrated  oxide 

of  a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  carried  by  said 

5v^>-A- 

-eieotrode,  and  an  inert  conducting  material  intimately 
mixed  with  said  oxide,  substantially  as  set  forth, 

3.  An  active  element  for  on  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  aivlelectrofe,  a'  hydrated  oxide 
of  a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  carried  by  said 
e-leetrode,  and  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said 
oxide,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

4.  An  RCtive  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  en-oiectrode  and  an  oxide  of 
nickel  carried  thereby  having  when  charged  nlootrolytioally 
more  oxygen  than  Hi20a,  substantially  as  set  forth, 

6.  An  active  clement  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprieing  ran-aleo$od#^an^oxide  of  niok- 
el  carried  thereby  having  when-  oharged-  olootrolytloaHy 
more  oxygen  than  HigOg,  and  an  inert  conducting  material 
intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide,  substantially  as  set  fortji 
6.  An  active  eloment  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  ^-ele otrode/'^ox i de  of  niok- 
-11- 


el  oarried  thereby  having  when  charged  eleotrolytloally 
more  oxygen  than  NigO^  ,and  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed 
with  said  oxide,  substantially  as  sot  forth. 

¥.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  oompr islng  -an-eleotrode  and  a  hydrated 
oxide  of  nickel  carried  thereby,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

0.  An  aotive  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  an-oleo-trode,  a  hydrated  oxide 
of  nickel  carried  thereby,  and  an  inert  conducting  material 
intimately  mixed  with  said  hydrated  oxide,  substantially  as 
set  forth. 

9.  An  aotive  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  o  ompr  is  in  g  'an  -oleo-tr  ode ,  a  hydrated  oxide 
of:  nickel  carried  thereby,  and  flake  graphite  intimately 
mixed  with  said  oxide,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

/  10.  An  aotive  oxidizable  element  for  an  alkaline 

reversible  galvanic  battery,  comprising  an-eleo-trode  and 

ei^cS  rtf  i  tfii 

eleotrolytloally  aotivs, finely  divided  iron  carried  thereby, 
substantially  asset  forth. 

,  oitUTK  . 

'■>*  fs  An  element  for /an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 

rrrr,i‘  »'  •’>  ■  ^ 

battery,  con® rising  an-  electrode- and  finely  divided  ferrous 

■*£.  rtf  ■*.  o 

oxide  Carried  thereby,  substantially  as  ‘set  forth. 

,  .  *4^  ,  . 

' '  r\  12.  An  aotive^ oxidizable  element  for  an  alkaline 


rovers iblo  galvanic  battery,  comprising -an  electrode-  and  an 
oxide  of  iron  Carried  thereby  eleotrolytloally  reducible  to 

1-U-faisA. 

the  metallic  state,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


i  alkaline 


‘  13.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery, 

electrolyte,  -an-oleotrode  carrying  finely  divided  iron;  whan 
charged,  and  another  elootrede  carrying  an  oxide  of  a  spec¬ 
ific  'magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  and-  capable  of  furnish¬ 
ing  oxygen > for  the  oxidation  oft-  the  iron  on, discharge,  sub¬ 
stantially  as set  for th. 


•J4".  In  a  reversible*  galvanic  'battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  au-elootrode  carrying  finely  divided  oxide  of 
iron  when  discharged,  and  another  eiee^ed©  carrying  on  ox- 
ide  of  a  speciflo  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  and  capable 
of  storing  oxygen  on  charging,  substantially  as  set  forth, 
Jr5;  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
eleotrolyte,  aa-eleotrode  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
charged,  another -eleo-trode  oarrying  an  oxide  of  a  specif io 
magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  and  capable  of  furnishing 
oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  discharge,  and  an  in ■ 
ert  conducting  material  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

■£6.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  •en-eietrfcrode  oarrying  finely  divided  iron  when 

is* 

charged,  another  -eletrfcrode-  oarrying  an  oxide  of  a  epeoif io 
magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  and  oapable  of  furnishing 
oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  discharge,  and  flake 
graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide,  substantially  as 
set  forth, 

£7.  In  a  reversible  galvanio  battery,  an  alkaline 
eleotrolyte,  an-eleetrod«  oarrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
charged,  an  inert  conducting  material  intimately  mixed  with 
said  finely  divided  iron,  an o carrying  an  ox¬ 
ide  of  a  speoifio  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  oapable  of 
furnishing  oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  discharge, 
and  an  inert  conducting  material  mixed  with  said,  oxide,  sub¬ 
stantially  as  set  forth. 

/jiff.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
eleotrolyte,  -an-ol-oetrode  oarrying  finely  .divided  iron 
when  ohargedi  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with 
said  finely  divided  .iron,  another  •eOwfcMdjL  oarrying  ah  ox¬ 
ide  of  a  speoifio  .magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  oapable  of 

-13- 


furnishing  oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  Iron  on  discharge, 
and  flake  graphite  mixed  with  3aid  oxide,  substantially  as 
set  forth. 

.  •  -'j  In  u  reversible  galvanio  battery,  an  alkaline 

electrolyte,  an-ol-ootrodo  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
charged, and  another  ©icetsode  carrying  oxide  of  nickel  capa¬ 
ble  of  furnishing  oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on 
disoharge,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

/  20-.  In  a  reversible  galvanio  battery,  an  alkaline 

electrolyte,  an-deotroda  carrying  finely  divided  oxide  of 
iron  when  discharged,  and  another  -oie-otrocUj  carrying  ah  ox¬ 
ide  of  nickel,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

-21.  In  a  reversible  galvanio  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an-eiectrode  oarrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
charged,  and  another  electrode  carrying  oxide  of  nickel 
having  when  charged  eleotrolytioaily  more  oxygen  than  tfigOg, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

-£$.  In  a  reversible  galvanio  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an  electrode  oarrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
olmrged,  and  another  oleotro3»  oarrying  a  hydrated  oxide  of 
nickel,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

\>  '■  ,  23-  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 

electrolyte,  an  olooti-odo  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
charged,  another  electrode  oarrying  oxide  of  nickel  capable 
of  furnishing  oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  dis¬ 
charge,  and  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

■ '  O  24;  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an-e loo tends  carrying  finely  divided  oxide  of 
iron  when  diBoharged,  another  -e4ee4«^oarrying  an  oxide 
of  nickel,  and  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said ox- 
ids,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


-14- 


■@8.  In  a  reversible  galvanio  battery,  an  alka- 
Un©  eleotrolyit,  an-  ©Retrod©  carrying  finely  divided  iron 

C<r 1^-^* 

imen  charged,  another  ■e-leojtr«de  oarrying  oxide  of  nickel 
naving  when  oharged  eleotrolytioally  more  oxygen  than  NigOg, 
uid  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide,  sub- 
Jtantially  as  set  forth. 

26.  In  a  reversible  galvanio  battery,  an  alkaline 

Cl  C<n- -cd  • 

ileotrolyte,  an-eioctrede  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
iharged,  another  eie'e4r^r’oarrying  a  hydrated  oxide  of 
liokel,  and  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide, 
mbstantially  as  set  forth. 

fiSt.  --An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
;alvanio  battery,  comprising  a  perf orated^receptaole  having 
slastio  walls  and  an  active  material  therein  engaged  by  said 
rails  with  an  elastic  pressure,  substantially  as  Bet  forth. 

26.  An  aotive  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
cal vanio  battery,  comprising  a  perforated^receptacle  having 
>lastio  walls  and  an  oxide  of  a  Bpeoifio  magnetic  metal  oth- 
ir  than  iron  in  Bald  receptacle,  said  oxide  being  capable  of 
burnishing  oxygen  eleotrolytioally  upon  diaoharge,  substan- 
;ially  as  set  forth.  v 

29.  An  aotive  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
;alvan.io  battery,  comprising  a  perfor^ed'^reoeptaole  having 

<  lastio  walls  and  an  oxide  of  niokel  carried  thereby  and. 'having 
vhen  oharged  eleotrolytioally  more  oxygen  than  Hi^Og,  sub- 
i  tantially  as  sat  forth. 

30.  An  aotive  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
jalvanio  battery,  comprising  a  p erforated^ra'cep taole  haying 
ilastio  walls  and  a  hydrated  oxide  of  niokel  carried  by  said 
•ecap taole  and  engaged  by  said  walls  with  an  olastio  pres¬ 
sure,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


-15- 


|jol© otrolyte,  an  aotivo  Material  therein  which  in  oharging 
discharging  is  alternately  increased  or  decreased  in 

Iulk,  a  perforated  receptacle  holding  the  material  and  hav- 
ng  elastic  mils  which  at  all  times  engage  the  material, 
ith  an  elastio  pressure,  and  ano th^r  'S^SIrede  drying  a 
ifferent  active  material,  substantially  an  set  forth. 

hattory>  m  alkaline 
sleotrolyte,  -an-e±eojode  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
harged,  another  -eleotrede  'hav ing" anTHf  ox- 
■  : de  of  a  speoif ic  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  carried 
rithin  said  receptacle  and  engaged  hy  the  walls  thereof  with 
«n  elastic  pressure,  said  oxide  being  capable  of  furnishing 
ncygen  f of  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  discharge,  substan- 
1 ially  as  Bet  forth. 

’  -  '  Sttlvauio  battery,  an  alkaline 

electrolyte,  aai-elec^rode  carrying  finely  divided  oxide  of 
iron  whan  discharged,  anoth^Tei^^^''ti^ising  a  recep¬ 
tacle  having  elastic  walls, and  an  oxide  of  a  speoif io  mag- 
natid  metal  other  than  iron  carried  within  said  reoeptaolc 
* ld  en«aS3d  hy  the  walls  with  an  elastio  pressure  and  eapa- 
hLe  of  storing  oxygen  on  oharging,  suhstantially  as  set 
fprth.  • 

Sd.  ln;a  reversible  galvanic  cell  employing  on  al- 
kiline  eleotrolyte,  an  active  material  therefor  and  flake 
glaphite  intimately  mixed  therewith,  substantially  aB  set 
.forth. 


-16- 


|  Thi“  *>3?°  oif ioab.lcn  signed  and  wif 

|  Witness^ 

X.  )z£t 


State  of 
County  of 


) 

:  #J3. 

)  • 

3  A.  EDISON,  the  above  named  petitioner,  being 
j  duly  awora,  deposes  and  says  that  he  Is  a  oitlaen  of  the 
Jnited  States,  and  a  resident  of  Llewellyn  Park  in  the  Coun- 
ty  of  Essex  and  State'  of  New  Jersey;  that  he  verily  toeV 
lieves  himself  to  he  the' original,  first  and  sole  inventor 
Of  tho  IMPROVEMENT  Xli  REVERSIBLE  GALVANIC  BATTERISS  de- 
j  oorihed  and  claimed  in  the  .annexed  speoifloatioto;  that  he 
does  not  know  and  does. not  believe  that  the  same  was  aver 
known  or  used  before  hia  invention  or  discovery  thereof; 
or  patented  or  described' in  any  printed  publication  in  the 
|  United  States  of  America  or  anyf’oreign  country,  before  his 
invention  or  discovery  thereof  ».>f  more  than  two  years  prior 
to  '.this  application}  or  in  public  uso  or  on  sale,  in  the 
•  |  United  States  for  more  than  two years  prior  to  thiB  appli- 
j  cation,  and  that  no  application;  .for  foreign  patent  has 'tjfen 
filed  by  him  or  hia  legal  representatives  or  assigns  in  any 
foreign  country,  except  aB  follows:  Great  Britain,  Prance, 
Austria,  Germany,  Switzerland,  Ipain,  Belgium,  Italy,  Hun- 
||  gary,  Sweden  and  Russia,  all  filed  Pebruary  5,  1901,  but  as 
yet  none  of  said  patents  have  issued, 

xJ 


8 worn  to  and  Bubscribedwbofore  me  this 
of  Pebruary  1901, 


Notary  Public. 


(Seal) 


2—tiM. 


United  States  Patent  Office, 


Apr.  2,  1901. 


Thoms  A.  Edison, 

Care  Dyer,  Edmonds  &  Dyer, 

31  Has  sail  St., 

*»*•  !T-  y-  CA  .  no,  -- 

NS*  t  K.*»  '/ 

Plenee  find  below  a  eommunUmtim,  from  the  EXAMINER  in:  charg^ofyour a,,/dieation. 

Ho.  49,453,  filed  Mar.  1,  1901, -"Reversible  Galvanic  Battery". 


F.  I.  Allen, 


It  is  suggested  that  the  words  conducting  support  be  sub¬ 
stituted  for  "electrode"  in  claims  TT~%,  3,  4,  FT~S,  7,  8,  9, 
10,  11,  12,  13,  14,  15,  16,  17,  18,  19,  20,  21,  22,  23,  24,  25, 


U 


Claim  51  is  objected  to  as  being  indistinct  and  functional 
in  the  words  "a  stable  electrolyte^'An  active  material  therein 
vhich  in  charging  or  discharging  is  alternately  increased  6r 
decreased  in  bulk". 

The  claims  in  this  case  are  censidered  to  cover  three  in¬ 
dependent  inventions:  (1)  an  active  element  composed  of  an  oxide 
of  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron,  covered  by  claims  1,  2,  3, 

4,  ,5’j  6:,  7-.j  8:j  9,  28,  29,  30;  (2)  an  active  element  composed  of 
finely  divided  iron,  covered  by  claim  10;  (3)  a  receptacle  for 
containing  active  material,  covered  by  claim  27.  The  claims 
'  which  :  include  both  active  elements  may  be  classed  under  either 
group  1  or  2.  As  to  claims  11  and  12,  in  which  finely  divided 
ferrous  oxide  or  an  oxide  of  iron^electrolytically  reducible  to 
the  metallic  state  is  claimed?  "These  claims  are  either  the 
same  as  claim  10  or  they  cover  a  different  invention  from  that 
covered  by  claim  10.  The  active  material  should  be  specified 
in  the  same  manner  in  each  of  these  claims.  The  same  criticism 


I 


49,453  -  2. 


Claim  4  is  rejected  upon: 

BgjJii-sh-iafiP.,  -gfili _ 5,  1887,  Abel,  (Batt ., Sec .) ; 

^  British  15,370,  July  26,  1899,  JIicholo7/sky,  (Batt .,  Sec  .)  . 

This  -claim  is  considered  to  be  broad  enough  to  cover  the  use 
of  3Ti203  as  the  active  agent  tKXxxt  since  the  words  "when 
charged  elect, roly tically"  refer  to  only  one  condition  of  the 
battery if  it  is  desired  to  cove'-  the  nickel  oxide  containing 
more  oxygen  than  IH2  O3  it  should  be  specifically  so  claimed. 

CJLaim  5  is  rejected  upon  Abel,  and  Kicholowsky  taken  in 
connection  withf 

/  U.  S.  274, ll(rf  20,  1883,  DeLalande,  (Batt ., 1-fl ., Zn. , Oxides) ; 
British  15, 880*r<Aug.  23,  1895,  Jungner,  (Batt .,  Sec  .)  . 

Claims  10,  11,  12  are  each  rejected  upon  DeLalande,  above 
cited. 

Claims  1$:  14,  15,  19,  20,  21,  32,  33  are  each  rejected 
upon  DeLalande  taken  in  connection  \vith  Abel  and  Kicholowskv, 
cited. 

Claims  27  and  31  are  rejected  upon  DeLalande  and: 

,  0.  S.  619,885.  Beb.  21. .1899,  Hamilton,  (Batt.  ,  1-fl. , ?,n. , Oxides) , 
and: 

/  British  7892,  Apr.  14,  1899,  Jungner,  (Batt-, , Sec. ) . 

Claims  28,  29  are  rejected  upon  the  references  cited 
against  claim  27,  taken  in  connection  with  Abel  and  Micholowsky, 
above  cited. 

In  advance  of  further  action  upon  Jrhe  merits  the  claims 
must  be  limited  to  a  single  invention. 


Jix'r  Div.  3. 


SERIES  OF  1900. 


Department  of  the  Interior, 


=,  aa 

7)  '4^'9^W 

/  /  '^mmr 


3  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  petition,  specification,  oath,  and,  3 

o  '  B 

"  |  drawing  of  your  alleged  Improvement  in _  _  _  J 

1- . _ . .  UL^M.  QULE.  •  . 5 


S  with  Fifteen  Dollars  as  the  first  fee  payable  thereon .  *  | 

^  The  papers  are  duly  filed,  and  your  application  for  a  patent  will  be  taken  I 
“  up  for  examination  in  its  order _ _ _ _ _ 1 


g  You  will  be  duly  advised  of  the  examination. 


V.ill  be  taken  up  for  “ 
ion  in  abouWmF montlw.jg' 


C. 


‘ _ <2?  <2/ 


Commissioner  of  Patents.  g 


No  application  is  considered  ns  complete,  nor  ta 
furnished  in  duo  form  by  tho  inventor  or  applicant. 


nplete,  nor  oan  an  j  official  action  bo  had  thereon,  until  all  ita  parts,  os  here  specified,  or 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON 
REVERSIBLE  GALVANIC  BATTERIES 
PILED  MARCH  1,  1901 
SERIAL  NO.  49,433 


:  EXAMINER'S  I 


HON.  COMMISSIONER.  OP  PATENTS, 
SIR:- 


Jn  the  abQTe -entitled  applioatioh  the  fol¬ 
lowing  amendment  is  submitted: - 

Claim  1,  line  2,  erase  "an  electrode*  and  substitute 

- a  conducting  support - i  line  4,  erase  “electrode* 

and  substitute  — — support - — . 

Claim  2,  line  8,  erase  "an  eleotrode"  and  substitute 

- -a  conducting  support-- - ;  line  4,  erase  "electrode" 

and  substitute  - support _ -. 

Claim  3,  line  2,  erase  "an  electrode"  and  substitute 

- a  conducting  support - ;  line  4,  erase  "electrode" 

and  substitute - support-- - -. 

Claim  4,  line  2,  erase  "an  eleotrode"  and  substitute 

- a  conducting  support - ;  line  3,  erase  "when  charged 

eleotrolytioally". 

Claim  5,  lino  2,  erase  "an  eleotrode"  and  substitute 

- a  conducting  support——;  lino  3,  erase  "when  charged 

eleotrolytioally". 

Claims  6,  7,  j5j  and  9;;:  line  2, of  eaoh,  erase  "an 
electrode"  and  substitute  —a  conducting,  support _ 

Claim  10,  line  2,  erase  “an  eleotrode"  and  substi¬ 
tute  —a  conducting  support——;  line  3,  after  "there¬ 
by"  insert - and  capable  of  being  oxidized  on  discharg¬ 
ing - y. 

Claim  11,  line  1,  before  "element"  insert  - — aotive 


deoxidizabl* - j  lino  2,  nm«  "an  electrode"  and  sub¬ 
stitute  - -a  conducting  support — --}  lino  3,  after 

" the reby"  insert - and  capable  of  being  deoxidized  on 

charging. 

Claim  12,  line  2,  erase  "an  electrode"  and  substi- 
tute  — —a  conduoting  support — - — }  line  4,  after  "Btate" 
insert - upon  charging - 

Claim  13,  line  2,  erase  "an  eleotrode"  and  substi¬ 
tute  — —a  conducting  support - ;  line  3,  erase  "elec¬ 
trode"  and  substitute - conduoting  support-- — . 

Claims  14,  15,  16,  17,  18,  19,  20,  21,  28,  23,  24, 

25  and  26,  line  2  of  each,  ernee  "an  electrode"  and  substi¬ 
tute  - — -a  conduoting  support- - . 

Claims  14,  15  and  16,  line  3  of  each}  claims  17  and 
18,  line  4  of  each}  claims  19,  2Q,  21,  22,  23,  24,  25  and 
26,  line  3  of  eaoh}  erase  "eleotrode"  and  substitute  — — 
conducting  support - . 

Claims  27,  28,  29  and  30,  line  2  of  eaoh,  before 
"receptacle"  insert  — - — oonduoting - . 

Claim  31,  line  1,  erase  "stable"  and  substitute — - 

suitable - ;  line  4,  before  "reoeptaole"  insert - - 

oonduoting - j  line  6,  erase  "eleotrode"  and  substitute 

—oonduoting  support - . 

Claim  32,  line  2,  erase  "an  oleotrode"  and  substi¬ 
tute  - a  oonduoting  support- — line  3,  erase  "elec¬ 
trode"  and  substitute  - -oonduoting  support  comprising  a 

reoeptaole- — 

Claim  35,  line  2,  erase  "an  eleotrode*  and  substi¬ 
tute  - - a  oonduoting  support- - }  line  3,  erase  "elec¬ 

trode"  and -substitute  - — conducting  support — - — . 

We  note  that  the  Examined  suggests  division  between 
the  claims  on  the.  active,  materials .  We  submit  that  in  sug- 
-2- 


geating  a  reversible  oell  wherein  iron  ia  enployed  as  one 
of  the  active  materials  and  oxide  of  niokel  or  cobalt  ao  the 
other  active  material,  applicant  has  produced  a  combination 
which  io  unique  and  of  greater  value  than  any  other  combina¬ 
tion  heretofore  suggested,  and  by  means  of  which  a  practical 
storage  battery  is  produaed  which  is  especially  adapted  for 
vehicle  traction.  Lead  batteries  as  now  used  deteriorate 
enormously  when  subjected  to  suoh  use,  and  are  far  too  heavy 
to  be  commercially  aoceptable.  In  fact,  it  appears  from 
recent  newspapers  that  two  transportation  oomranies,  in 
Illinois  and  Now  England,  have  liquidated  and  gone  out  of 
business  for  this  reason.  All  of  the  alkaline  zinoate  type 
of  batteries,  while  less  in  weight  than  lead  batteries, 
have,  lip  to  the  time  of  applicant’s  experiments  in  this  art, 
even  a  greater  deterioration,  on  aooount  of  the  failure  of 
prior  experimenters  to  disoover  a  metal  whioh  oan  be  plated 
out  of  the  solution  in  a  sufficiently  coherent  form  as  to  be 
practicable.  Hence  it  is  necessary  to  find  some  metal  whidi 
oan  be  oxidised  and  reduced  in  alkaline  solutions  and  whose 
oxide  shall  be  insoluble  therein.  Magnesium  is  light,  but 
it  cannot  be  used,  since  its  oxide  ia  not  reducible,  while, 
its  greatoexpens*  would  be  further  objectionable.  Aluminum, 
while  cheap  and  light,  oannot  bo  employed,  sinoe  its  oxide 
is  soluble  in  the  alkaline  solution,  and  furthermore  it 
could  not  be  plated  back  even  if  its  oxide  did  not  dissolve. 
Manganese  is  also  economical  and  of  light  weight,  but  it  de¬ 
composes  in  the  solution  spontaneously  and  hence  is  useless. 
Cadmium  can  be  employed,  as  applicant  describes  in  pendlhg 
applications,  but  the  supply  of  this  metal  is.  quite  restrict¬ 
ed  and  its  price  is  high.  Niokel  oould  not  be  reduced  to 
the  metallic  state,  although  cheap  and  light,  and  if  it 
6ould  be  used,  its  voltage  would  be  lower  than  that  of  iron*  , 


The  name  is  true  of  cohalt,  who. oh  however  la  relatively  ex¬ 
pensive.  Tin  is  out  of  the  question,  as  Its  oxide  is  also 

soluble.  The  oxides  of  antimony  are  also  soluble *  their 

atomio  weight  high,  and  even  if  such  oxides  could  he  used, 
the  voltage  would  he  less  than  that  of  iron.  head  also  can¬ 
not  he  used,  since  its  oxide  is  soluble.  Copper  could  he 
employed,  hut  its  voltage  would  he  very  low.  The  only 
available  metals  which  o.an  be  used  for  the  purpose  are  there¬ 
fore  cadmium,  iron  and  oopper.  The  voltage  derived  from 
Qadmium  and  iron  is  about  the  same,  while  that  from  copper 
Is  vory  much  lower.  Cadmium  is  expons ive ,  scarce,  and  re¬ 
quires  four  times  the  weight  of  iron.  But  the  voltages 
even  of  iron  and  cadmium  are  very  low,  and  a  perfectly  sat¬ 
isfactory  battery  as  to  weight  could  not  he  scoured  with  the 
usual  depolarizers  which  were  available  prior  to  applicant’s 
invention,  of  which  oopper  oxide  and  mercuric  oxide  are  prac¬ 
tically  the  only  examples.  Copper  oxide  used  as  a  depol¬ 
arizer  with  iron  or  cadmium  gives  only  about  .45  of  a  volt; 
it  Is  cheap  and  light,  but  the  low  voltage  necessitates  a 
large  increase  cf  weight.  Mercuric  oxide  employed  as  a  de¬ 
polarizer  with  iron  or  cadmium  gives  about  .85  to  .90  of  a 
volt,  but  its  weight  and  expense  are  also  high.  But  by  the 
use  of  nickel  or  cobalt  oxide  when  in  a  state  higher  than 
SfigOg  or  CqgOg,  the  voltage  of  the  iron  or  cadmium  is  raised 
up  to  about  1.38  volts,  and  as  nickel  and  oobalt  have  a  low 
atomic  weight,  the  combination  gives  a  greater  energy  per 
E>dund  with  a  higher  voltage  than  any  known  combination  in 
alkaline  solutions  heretofore  suggested,  exclusive  of  suoh 
satteries  where  a  plating  out  of  the  solution  Is  employed; 
and  the  pries  per  watt  hour  relative  to  the  weight  is  lower 
than  any  combination  now  known.  It  seems  therefore  that 
>y  the  use  of  iron,  with  its  cheapness  and  lightness,  in  j 


combination  with  nickel  or  cobalt,  and  particularly  the  for¬ 
mer,  with  its  oho  apneas,  l.t  china  as  and  high  voltage,  a 
unique  battery  io  produced  possessing  advantages  never  be¬ 
fore  known.  We  believe  therefore  that  the  claims  present 
an  instance  of  a  true  combination  of  cooperating  elements, 
and  we  hope  that  the  Examiner  will  not  insist  upon  his  re¬ 
quirement  for  division. 

So  far  as  claim  27  is  concerned,  the  purpose  of  that 
claim tis  only  to  cover  the  use  of  an  active  material  in  a 
reoeptaole  having  elastic  walls  in  language  which  will  em¬ 
brace  the  genus  of  applicant's  invention.  The  Examiner 
does  not  object  to  suoh  of  the  claims  aB  cover  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  enclosed 
in  a  receptacle  having  elastic  walls,  so  that  W6  do  not  see 
the  strict  necessity  of  dividing  on  the  lines  of  a  claim  ' 
which  oovers  the  Bams  invention  in  generic  terms. 

With  reference  to  claim  10,  it  is  to  ho  observed 
that  said  olaim  oovers  as  broadly,  as  possible  "electrolyti- 
cally  aotlve  finely  divided  iron"  as  the  oxidizable  element 
of  an  alkaline  storage  battery,  the  claim  aBBuming  the  ele¬ 
ment  to  be  in  a  charged  condition. 

Claim  11  covers  "finely  divided  ferrous  oxide",  the 
assumption  being  that  the  element  is  in  a  discharged  condi¬ 
tion.  We  do  not  know  whether  it  is  the  practice  to  claim 
active  elements  both  in  their  charged  and  discharged  condi¬ 
tions,  but  we  see  no  objection  to  suoh  a  practice,  since  it 
does  not  make  the  claims  obscure,  while  the  protection  af¬ 
forded  thereby  would  be  increased. 

So  far  as  tho  12th  olaim  is  concerned,  it  is  some¬ 
what  broader  than  tho  11th  in  not  being  limited  to  ferrous 
oxide,  and  is  designed  to  be  commensurate  with  the  10th 
claim  as  covering  any  iron  oxide  which  is  "elaotrolytioally 

'  •  I 


reducible  to  the  metallic  state  upon  charging". 

We  have  amended  claims  4  and  8  by  erasing  the  words 
"when  oharged  electrolytically",  so  that  each  of  said  olaims 
is  now  limited  to  "an  oxide  of  nickel  *  *  •  having  more 

oxygen  than  Ni203".  In  other  words,  each  of  these  claims, 
covers  the  depolarizer  in  a  charged  condition.  We  under¬ 
stand  the  Scam iner  intimates  in  Ms  letter  that  the  claims 
when  thus  amended  will  he  allowed. 

In  reference)  to  the  British  patent  to  Ah  el,  JJo.1862 
of  1887,  which  the  Examiner  cites,  the  Invention  thereof  is 
a  Lalande  storage  hattery  using  copper  oxide  as  a  dopolaris- 
er.  The  invention  of  the  patent,  as  we  understand  it,  con¬ 
sists  in  mixing  an  oxide  which  has  several  degrees  of  oxi¬ 
dation  with  copper  oxide,  and  whioh  hy  parting  with  some  of 
its  Oxygen  to  the  oopper,  causes  the  latter  to  he  raised  tp 
a  higher  stage  of  oxidation,  presumably  OuOs.  The  patent 
recites  a  number  of  oxides  whioh  form  lower  and  higher  ox¬ 
ides  and  which  may  perform  this  aotion  with  oopper.  The 
entire  patent  is  full  of  misstatements  and  appears  to  be 
purely  theoretical..  The  patentee  states  that  certain  ox- 
ide«  are  insoluble  in  alkaline  solutions,  and  among  them 
mention  is  mode  of  oxide  of  bismuth  (of  whioh  ijhera  are  five, 
though  no  one  is  specifically  identified)  and  oxide  of  sil¬ 
ver,  presumably  AsfcO.  Both  of  these  oxides  of  these 
metals  are  so  soluble  in  zinoate  solutions  of  alkalies  that 
it  is  praotically  impossible  to  plate  zinc  from  the  solution 
in  a  coherent  fora  so  as  to  be  used  in  a  storage  battery.  . 
Bismuth  oxides  of  various  kinds  could  be  made  ohemioally  and 
used,  but  if  made  eleotrioally  they  reduce  with  suoh  .dlf- . 
ficulty  that  the  voltage  would  be  lower  than  the  common  oop- 
per  oxide  of  the  lalande  battery,  and.  their  use  therefore'  , 
would  be  R  positive  detriment.  Moreover,  since  bismuth' 


I  oxide  la  not  raised  to  the  higher  stage  by  current  when  in 
a  solid  state  and  in  alkaline  solutions,  it  could  not  possi¬ 
bly  asa.lBt  in  giving  off  oxygen  to  the  copper  oxide  to  cause 
it  to  be  raised  to  a  higher  stage.  Peroxide  of  manganese, 
also  referred  to  by  the  patentee,  cannot  be  raised  to  a 
higher  stage  of  oxidation  chemically  or  by  the  current.  It 
does  not  work  at  all  in  alkaline  solutions.  it  is  inert; 

In  many  oheraioal  reactions  peroxide  of  manganese  passes  its 
oxygen  to  assist  in  oxidations  of  other  materials  without 
itself  changing.  In  this  reBpeot  it  1b  like  peroxide  of 
oobalt,  but  in  alkaline  solutions  under  the  conditions  of  a 
storage  battery  it  does  not  so  act.  If  protoxide  of  nickel 
is  to  be  mixed  with  copper  or  teroxide  of  niokol  is  so  used, 
neither  aots  as  a  transferrer  of  oxygen  as  the  patentee 
states.  The  aame  is  true  of  protoxide  of  oobalt,  although 
the  peroxide  of  oobalt  aots  as  suoh  an  agent  but  not  in  al¬ 
kaline  solution.  Thera  are  three  oxides  of  copper,  Ot^O, 
3u0,  and  CuOg.  The  latter  oxide  is  unstable,  and  although 
rery  desirable  as  a  depolarizer  in  an  alkaline  battery,  it 
>annot  be  made  by  the  ourrent  nor  be  produced  when  mixed 
rith  any  of  the  above  oxidizers.  It  is  made  chemically 
>y  the  action  of  peroxide  of  hydrogen,  but  it  is  bo  unsta- 
ile  that  it  decomposes  at  ordinary  temperatures,  and  its 
'Xis tenae  is  even  denied  by  some  chemists.  Abel  in  his 
.atent  states  that  on  discharging  from  the  battery,  the: 
oxides  revolt  to  a  lower  Btage  of  oxidation.  This  state¬ 
ment  is  entirely  inoorreot,  since  silver,  oopper  and  bis¬ 
muth,  the  oxides  of  whioh  metals  are  all  referred  to;,  re¬ 
vert  to  the  metallic  state.  The.  patentee  also  says  that, 
oxide  of  lead  oan  be  used  in  . the  alkaline  solution,  where-; 
Upon  lead  will  bo  deposited  in  plaoe  of  zinc.  Had  the  ex¬ 
periment  boon  tried,  the  patentee  would  have  found  that  only 
filaments  of  lead  ore  formed  under  suoh  conditions  and; that 


I  no  coherent  coating  taken  place,  and  that  Instead  of  the 
oxides  which  are  referred  to  being  raised  to  a  higher  state 
Of  oxidation,  peroxide  of  lead  would  ho  deposited  on  the 
positive  pole  out  of  the  solution  simultaneously  with  the 
deposition  of  lead  on  the  negative  pole  and  the  various 
mixtures  he  recites  would  not  he  acted  on  at  all.  Finally, 
Abel  in  the  patent  wider  consideration  alleges  that  any  oth¬ 
er  metal  than  zino  or  lead  can  be  used  which  will  combine,, 
with  the  alkaline  solution.  Tills  statement  is  also  incor¬ 
rect,  since  aluminum  combines  oven  better  than  zinc  but  can¬ 
not  be  plated  back,  and  there  are  other  raetal3  of  the  same 
character.  It  seems  to  us  therefore  that  the  Abel  patent 
is  purely  theoretical,  that  most  of  its  statements  are  en¬ 
tirely  unsupported  in  fact,  and  that  it  should  not  be  relied 
upon  as  a  reference  to  a  speoifio  and  valuable  improvement,; 
based  on  actual  experiments,  no  the  Examiner  knows. 

The  Abel  patent  in  question  corresponds  to  German 
patent  No.  38,383  of  January  18,  1887,  to  Alfred  Dun  of 
Frankfort.  This  is  tho  patent  that  is  specifically  refer¬ 
red  to  by  Mlohalowski  in  his  German  patent  Ho.  118,351, 
which  corresponds  to  the  English  patent  in  the  same  name, 

Ho.  15,370  of  1899.  Tho  German  patent  to  Dun  Is  also  re¬ 
ferred  to  by  Mlohalowski  in  the  latter's  English  patent¬ 
ee  submit  that  if  the  Abel  British  patent  or  the  correspond¬ 
ing  Dun  German  patent  offered  any  valuable  suggestions  for 
the  use  of  oxide  of  niokel  as  a  depolarizer  for  use  irre¬ 
versible  galvanic  batteries,  Mlohalowski,  who  followed  Dun, 
would  have  availed  himself  of  such  suggestions.  Yet  the. 
fact  is  that  Mlohalowski  aooompllehed  no  more  than  did  his, 
predecessor.  All  the  statements  made  by  Mlohalowski  in 
liis  patont  have  been  investigated  experimentally  at  the  Ed¬ 
ison  laboratory.  It  has  been  found  that  soaroely  ^  single 
one  has  any  foundation  in  fact,  and  the  patent  my  be  rt- 
•  -8- 


gardod  as  entirely  and  hopelessly  Inoperative.  Mlohalowski 
etates  tJiat  KigOg  acts  as  a  depolarizer,  "but  this  statement 
is  untrue.  ITigOj.  when  placed  in  contact  with  a  conducting 
electrode  in  a  zinc  alkaline  battery  In  inert,  and  that  ox¬ 
ide  when  made  by  any  of  the  methods  described  in  the  patent 
is  inert.  The  oxide  of  nickel  which  acts  as  a  depolarizer 
cannot  he  made  by  any  of  the  processes  recited  in  the  Mi- 
ohalowski  patent}  neither  can  it  be  formed  by  taking  the 
Ki20s  an  produced  by  the  procesne#  described  by  the  patents*, 
even  when  subjected  to  electrolytic  oxidation  in  an  alka¬ 
line  solution. 

The  real  depolarizer  which  applicant  has  discovered 
is  a  higher  oxide  than  ITlgOg,  made  by  electrolytic  action 
in  alkaline  solution  on  nickel  hydroxide  and  not  on  nickel 
oxide.  It  seetas  to  us  that  neither  the  bun  patent  ae  de¬ 
scribed  in  the  Ahel  patent,  nor  the  Kichalowski  patent  which 
the  Examiner  also  refers  to,  can  bo  considered  as  throwing 
any  light  whatever  on  the  particular  work  in  which  applicant 
is  engaged,  and  we  submit  that  suoh  patents  therefore  should 
be  withdrawn.  In  view  of  the  manifest  value  of  applicants 
depolarizer,  it  seems  hardly  possible  that  the  prior  invent¬ 
ors  could  have  produced  the  same  without  discovering  it* 
importance. 

We  note  that  the  Examiner  rejects  the  claims  on  the 
electrolytioally  active  finely  divided  iron  or  electrolyti- 
cally  reducible  oxide  of  iron  on  the  United  states  patent  to 
Lalande.  Although  tho  translation  from  the  French  of  the 
Lalando  specification  is  not  all  that. could  be  desired,  it 
is  clear  that  lalanda  describes  the  employment  of  reduced  : 
iron,  palladium,  platinum,  and  spongy  platinum  solely  for  : 
the  purpose  of  absorbing  hydrogen,  which  of  itself  acts  as 
the  oxidlzable  element.  .The  reduced  metal  is,  however,  ab- 
-D-  '  '  : 


solutely  insert  and  1b  therefore  not  eleatrolytioally  ac¬ 
tive,  nor  waa  it  expeoted  that  it  would  he, 

So  far  as  the  Hamilton  patent  is  oonoerned,  we  fail 
to  perceive  its  pertinence.  All  that  it  appears  to  show 
is  a  depolarising  plate  held  in  position  hy  a  wire,  whioh 
oannot  in  any  sense  of  the  term  he  considered  the  equivalent 
of  a  recap taole  having  elastic  walls. 

Applicant  has  made  an  effort  to  fully  and  completely 
diBouBB  all  the  references  oitod  hy  the  Examiner,  and  point 
out  why  in  his  opinion  the  requirement  for  division  oueht 
not  to  he  insisted  upon. 

We  hope  that  as  now  presented  the  ease  my  he  al¬ 
lowed. 

Very  respectfully, 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON, 

By _ _ 

Kis  Attorneys . 

New  York,  April  15,  1901. 


-3©-: 


VI! 


s 

!i 


3— 210. 


department  of  the  interior.  A.M.H. 

United  States  Patent  Office. 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

Care  Dyer,  Edmonds  &  Dyer, 
31  Hass  an  st . , 

Hew  York,  H.  Y. 


(  m?j 


Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application. 

Ho.  49,453,  filed  Mar.  1,  1901, -"Reversible  Galvanic  Battery", 


Commissioner  of  A 


considSerenteent  flle<1  Apr’  18  *  1901’  has  been  entered  aad 

nr.o«=TJ!e+PvrAi0n‘?  shovm  ln  solid  black  i"  ?i e.  2,  should  be 
tion!  h  tched’  since  in  this  art  solid  black  indicates  insula- 

disttno t  ?^^lth?T?aSe  “T  sti11  considered  to  cover  two 
ot  invent  ioas.  (l)  an  act  ivejlerpgnt  composed  of  an  oxide 

of  a  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron?/ covered  by  claims  1,  2, 

’  fj .  5*  7>  8»  2®»  29  and  30;  (2)  an  active  material  com¬ 

posed  of  finely  divided  iron  or  finely  divided  ferrous  oxide 
nnM«edfby  olai“s  1°»  11  and  12.  These  active  elements  are  ca- 
S?bfh»  L«»?4na!?endentiy  of  each  other>  see  bottom  of  pace  2 
°5w  specification,  and  neither  modifies  the  action  of  the 

In  advance  of  further  action  upon  the  merits  the  claims 
Should  be  limited  to  one  invention. 

of  it  7  and  8  are  each  rejected  upon  Abel, 

^d  cobalt  which  the  Uf®  °f  hydrated  oxides  of  nickel 

^oxidath^hl  5  h  t!  o£ro?erty  of  Passlne  to  a  hie her  staCe 
or  oxidation.  See  lines  20-25,  pace  1  of  Abel. 

record  and ^  10’  11  12  &re  each  reJected  upon  Dalande,  of 

German  107 i 727,  Hov.  29,  1899,  Poliak,  (Batt . , Sec. ) . 

thaV  applicant  is  mistaken  in  the  statement  that 
in  the  Dalande  patent  the  reduced  iron  is  solelv  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  abuorbine  hydroeen,  as  it  is  believed  this  is  true  only 


! 


4 

49,455  -  2. 

of  the  palladium  and  platinum,  the  metals  usually  employed  for 
this  purpose.  As  the  reduced  iron  and  precipitated  copper  are 
readily  oxidizable  elements  they  would  be  alternately  oxidized 
and  reduced  during  discharging  and  charting  of  the  Lalande  cell. 
In  the  absence  of  evidence  that  the  reduced  iron  merely  acts 
to  absorb  hydrogen,  it  must  be  assumed  that  it  acts  as  above 
stated  Las' this  appears  to  be  the  more  probable  explanation. 

Claims  13,  14,  15,  19,  20,  21,  32  and  33  ar^e  each  rejected 
upon  lalande  and  Poliak  taken  in  connection  with  Abel  and 
Hichalowski,  of  record.  These  claims  do  not  cover  such  a  com¬ 
bination  as  will  mee.t  the  legal  tests  precluding  the  joinder 
of  references.  Each  tJf  the  active  elements  is  capable  of  use 
with  various  other  active  elements  and  neither  one  of  them 
modifies  the  action  of  the  other.  The  Hichalowski  patent  is 
retained  as  a  reference  as  the  data  upon  which  the  statements 
are  based  that  it  is  inoperative  are  not  specified  in  this  case. 
If  this  data  be  furnished  the  Hichalowski  patent  will  be  with¬ 
drawn  as  a  reference. 

Claim  22  is  rejected  upon  Lalande  and  Poliak  taken  in  con¬ 
nection  with  Abel. 

Claim  27  is  rejected  upon  Hamilton  and  lalande  of  record. 

In  reply  to  the  statement  that  all  Hamilton  appears  to  show  is 

a  depolarizing  plate  held  in  position  by  a  wire  attention  is 
called  to  lines  48-52  and  60-63,  page  2.  In  lines  52,  53,  page 

1  of  Lalande  it  is  stated  that  the  oxide  of  copper  may  be  held 

by  a  bag  of  iron,  copper  or  brass  gauze. 

Claims  28,  29  and  51  are  each  rejected  upon  Hamilton  and 
Lalande  taken  in  connection  with  Abel  and  Hichalowski. 

Claim  30  is  rejected  upon  Hamilton  and  Lalande  taken  in 
connection  with  Abel. 


Ex'r'Div.  3, 


c 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON 
REVERSIBLE  GALVANIC  BATTERY 
SIZED  MARCH  1,  1901 
SERIAL  NO.  49,453 

A  P  PEAL  . 

HON.  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS, 

SIR: 

In  the  above-entitled  application,  we  hereby 
appeal  to  the  Board  of  Exarainera-inrOhief  from  the  decision 
of  the  Pr.imary  Examiner,  who  on  May  7th,  1901,  rejected  for 
a  second  time  and  f  inally  claims  1,  2,  4,  5,  7,  8,  10,  11, 
12,  13,  14,  15,  19,  20,  21,  22,  27,  28,  29,  30,  31,  52  and 
33,  and  we  assign  the  following  reas ons  of  appeal :- 

.  3-  The  Examiner  erred  in  deciding  that  the  patent 
to  Abel  of  record  dieolosee  the  equivalent  of  applicant's  to- 
proved  depolarizer.. 

The  Examiner  erred  in  deciding  that  the  pat¬ 
ents  to  Lalande  and  to  Poliak  disclose  the  equivalent  of. 
applicant's  improved  oxidizable  element. 

3-  The  Examiner  erred  in  deciding  that  the  refer¬ 
ences  of  record  anticipate  the  terms  of  the  rejected  claims. 

-.V  The  Examiner  erred  in  deciding  that  the  refer¬ 
ences  of  reoord  anticipate  the  substance  of  said  claims. 

Jk_  The  Examiner  erred  in  rejecting  said  claims,. 

_  6._  The  Examiner  erred  in  not  allowing  said  claims. 
An  oral  hearing  is-  raBpeotfully  requested. 


ROOM  NO.  149. 


Respectfully, 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON, 


pew  York,  Kay  8,  1901. 


His  Attorneys. 


Messrs.  Dyer,  Edmonds  &  Dyer, 
New  York  City. 

Gentlemen: - 


Your  favor  of  the  8th  instant,  enclosing  two 
appeals  in  Edison  Storage  Battery  cases,  filed  January 
8,  1901,  and  March  1,  1901,  No.  42,514  and  No.  49,453, 
respectively,  is  at  hand  and  contents  noted. 

Mr.  Byrnes  refused  to  accept  the  appeal  in  the 
March  case,  as  certain  of  the  claims  had  not  heen  twice 
acted  upon.  He  also  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  case 
should  be  divided  before,  appeal. 

1  telegraphed  the  result  of  the  interview  to 
you,  and  upon  receiving  your  reply  again  saw  Mr.  Byrnes. 
He  agreed  to  withdraw  hi3  requirement  for  division  until 
after  the  appeal  is  decided.  At  the  same  time,  I  have 
filed  a  request, for  reconsideration.  Both  cases  are  set 
for  Wednesday  next,  in  the  afternoon.  The  Examiner’s ' 
aireweiswill  be  ffirnished  in  time,  . 

YoUrs.  truly, 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OFJICE, 
- 0O0 - - 

Thomas  A.  Edison  :  <. 

Reversible  Galvanic  Battery  : 

Room  No.  149. 

Piled  March  1,  1901  : 

Serial  No.  49,453  ! 

- $Oo - 

Honorable  Commissioner  of  Patents, 

Sir:- 

In  the  above  entitled  application,  it  is  re¬ 
quested  that  the  requirement  for  division  be  waived  un¬ 
til  the  appeal  to  be  taken  to  the  Board  be  disposed  of. 

It  is  understood  that  it  is  the  usual  praotide 
to  require  that  division  be  made  prior  to  appeal,  but  in 
view  of  the  peculiar  ciroumstances  of  the  case  and  the 
desire  on  the  part  of  the  applicant  for  immediate  aotion, 
, it  is  requested  that  this  requirement  be  postponed. 

Reconsideration  of  claims  1,  2,  4,  5,  7  and  8 
is  requested.  It  i-s  thought  that -the  Abel  patent  does 
not  disclose  the  equivalent  of  applicant's  improved  de¬ 
polarizer.  Reconsideration  of  daimB  10,  11  and  12  is 
requested,  as  it  is  thought  that  the  references  Lalande 
and  Poliak  do  not  disclose  the  equivalent  of  applicant's 
improved  oxidizable  element. 

Reconsideration  of  claims  13,  14,  16,  19,  2b, 


21,  32  and  33,  io  requested,  as  it  is  thought  that  the 
references  Abel  and  Michaelowski  do  not  meet  the  terms 
of  these  claims. 

Reconsideration  of  claim  22  is  requested  for 
the  reasons  stated  in  connection  with  claims  10,  11  and 
12. 

Reconsideration  of  claim  27  is  requested,  as  it  is 
thought  that  Hamilton  and  Lalande  do  not  disclose  the  in¬ 
vention  set  forth  in  this  claim.  Reconsideration  of 
olaims  23,  29  and  31,  is  requested,  for  the  reason  that 
the  patents  of  Hamilton  and  Lalande  taken  in  connection 
with  those  of  Abel  and  Michaelov/ski,  do  not  disolose  the 
invention  set  forth  in  these  claims. 

Reconsideration  of  claim  30  i 3  requested  for 
the  same  reason. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Thomas  A.  Edison, 
by 

Washington,  I).  C., 

May  9,  19ol.  his  Attorneys. 


Waihlngton,  D.  C.»  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR,  N 

d  HuurtieSi  States  ^patent 

|  •  ,  Washington,  ffl.  C., . iqo y/  \ 

1  SM:  "  /  — 

| 

2  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  APPEAL  in  the .... 

8  ■  ja.  np  * 


3  the  fee  payable  thereon. 
jj  Of  the  result  due  advice  will  be  given. 

.  |  •  •  Very  respectfully, 

\  M.  '14*  •  . 

fe  - . 

r  / 


tmissloner  of  Patents. 


17924blm<-01 


V 


in  the  United  states  patent  office. 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON 
REVERSIBLE  GALVANIC  BATTERIES 
FILED  MARCH  1,  1901 
SERIAL  NO.  49,453 


BRIEF  FOR  APPELLANT. 

The  present  invention  relates  to  reversible  galvanic 
or  so-called  •'storage''  batteries.  A  light,  permanent  and 
oheap  storage  battery  iB  a  device  for  which  many  inventors 
have  sought  unsuooessfully  for  years.  The  problem  was  ta¬ 
ken  up  by  Mr.  Edison  some  time  ago,  and  after  almost  count¬ 
less  experiments  a  number  of  new  cells  have  been  produced. 

Of  the  several  inventions  which  were  made  as  a. result  of 
these  exp eriments ,  the  combination  of  the  present  oase  iff 
that  whioh  has  been  finally  adopted  as  offering  the  most  per¬ 
fect  solution  of  all  praotioal  difficulties. 

The  common  lead  aooumulator  originally  suggested  by 
Plantd  and  improved  by  Faure,  Brush  and  others,  is  at  the 
present  time  praotioally  the  only  storage  battery  in  use,  bu\ 
it  .14  objectionable,  on  aooount  of  its  great  weight  and  enor¬ 
mous  deterioration.  Batteries  of  the  alkaline  zinoate  type 
have  also  been  suggested  a,nd  used,,  and  ; they  ai’e  of 

less  weight  than  lead  batteries,  they  have  a  greater  deter¬ 
ioration,  principally  on  aooount  of  the  failure  of  previous 
experimenters  to  disoover  a.raetal  on  which  the  aino  oould 
be  plated  out  of  the  solution  in  a  sufficiently  ooherent 
form  as  to  -be  practicable.  In  .applicant *&  experiments ,  suol 
a  metal  has  been  discovered  and  is  embodied  in  another  appli- 
cation)  but  with,  batteries  of',  the  alkaline  isinoate  type  the 


Before  the  Examiners-in-chief/ 
On  Appeal. 


present  oase  hafl  nothing  to  do.  It  my  ho  mentioned,  how¬ 
ever,  that  alkaline  zinoata  batteries,  although 'ii^tor  than 
lead  oello ,  must  always  be  necessarily  bulky,  sinoe  enough 
solution  must  he  employed  to  take  up  the  zino  oxide  on  dis¬ 
charge. 

What  applioant  sought  to  do,  therefore,  was  to  pro- 
duoe  a  battery  having  ohemioal  reactions  whioh  require  noth¬ 
ing  to  he  taken  from  or  added  to  the  solution  in  discharging 
or  charging  and  henoe  overoome  the  necessity  of  using  a  largo 
quantity  of  solution,  as  is  necessary  in  the  alkaline  zino- 
ate  and  load  batteries,  and  at  the  same  time  to  employ  an 
alkaline  eleotrolyte  and  hence  prevent  the  deterioration  pro- 
duoed  by  acids,  overoome  the  necessity  of  employing  a  great 
hulk  of  water  in  Whioh  to  carry  the  aoid,  and  also  do  ! 
away  with  the  necessity  of  rapid  absorption  of  some  ingredi¬ 
ent  from  the  liquid  as  to  lead  cells.  Hence  it  was  first 

I  necessary  to  find  some  metal  which  oan  be  oxidized  and  re¬ 
duced  in  alkaline  solutions  and  whose  oxide  is  insoluble 
therein.  In  searching  for  suoh  a  metal,  applicant's  exper¬ 
iments  carried  him  through  the  list  of  all  the  elements  of 
sufficient  oheapnesfi  arid  quantity  to  make  their  use  possible 
in  this  aft.  Metals  whioh  are  prohibitively  high  in  cost  o  • 
the  supply  of  whioh  ;is  very  low  were  not,  of  course,  as  ex¬ 
haustively  examined  as  others.  Many  interesting  facts  were 
determined  by  'these  se^periments.  It  was  fpund  that  magne¬ 
sium  opuld  not  be. -used,  , (although  light,  beoaupe  its  oxide  is 
not  reducible,  while ,  of  bourse,  its  great  eagpenee  would  be 
further,  obJeotionab^e.  Aluminum*  while  cheap,  and  light, 
oannot  be  employed,;  sitjoe  its  , oxide  is  soluble  irt -  the  ialka- 
};ine  solution,  .and.  furthermore  ijroould  not  be  plated  back  ai 
in  an  Alkaline ^einoate  battery,;  -even  if  its.  oxide  did’not 
ddssolwe.  'ManganeO!»;fiB/.also.  edbnomidal •  and‘  of  light  weight 

V  v  '  ■  : . :;v  ’  .  -r' 


■v 


but  it  decomposes  spontaneously  in  an  alkaline  solution,  and 
hence  is  usalesB.  Cadmium  can  be  used,  as  applicant  de¬ 
scribes  and  claims  in  pending  applications,  but  the  supply 
of  this  metal  is  quite  restricted  and  its  price  is  high. 
Nickel  oxide  oould  not  be  reduced  to  the  metallic  state,  al¬ 
though  cheap  and  light,  and  even  if  it  oould  be  used  its 
voltage  would  be  very  low.  The  same  is  true  of  cobalt, 
■which,  however,  is  relatively  expensive.  Tin  is  out  of  the 
question,  as  its  oxide  is  soluble.  The  oxides  of  antimony 
are  also  soluble,  their  atomic  weight  high,  and  even  if  such 
oxides  oould  be  used  the  voltage  derived  therefrom  would  be 
prohibitively  low.  lead  cannot  be  employed,  since  its  ox¬ 
ide  is  soluble.  Copper  oan  be  used,  but  its  voltage  is  very 
low.  The  only  possible  metals,  therefore,  whioh  can  be. 
used  for  the  purpose  are  cadmium,  iron  and  copper.  The 
voltage  derived  from  cadmium  and  iron  is  about  the  same, 
while  that  from  oopper  is  very  muoh  lower. 

Having,  therefore,  by  a  process  of  exclusion,  deter¬ 
mined  upon  these  possible  useful  metals,  applicant  construct¬ 
ed  oells  employing  cadmium  as  the  active  metal  and  using  as 
a  depolarizer  oxide  of  oopper  prepared  in  a  special  way  so 
as  to  be  entirely  insoluble.  That  combination,  as  stated, 
is  made  the  subject  of  other  applications, and  through  the 
issue  of  foreign  patents  and  publication  in  technical  Jour¬ 
nals  haB  been  made  known  to  t be  world. 

The  utilisation  of  cadmium  as  the  aotive  element  was 
very  simple,  since  that  metal  is  readily  reduoed  by  the 
charging  current  and  oxidised  on  discharge.  With  iron,  how¬ 
ever,  the  problem  presented  great  difficulty.  Since  none 
of  the  ohendoal  books  to  which  applicant  had  aooess  referred 
tp.  any  iron  pburpound  whioh  could  be  eleotrolytioally  oxidise! 
arid  reduced  and  whose  oxide  is  insoluble  in  an  aUdllin*  so¬ 
lution,  imoh  a  compound  had  to  be  discovered  by  independent 


-s- 


(experiment.  The  more  prominent  of  the  diffioulties  which 
applicant  met  in  hie  eearoh  for  the  right  material  are  state  1 
in  the  specification.  Applicant  says:- 


I  "My  attempts  to  utilize  iron  aB  the  oxidizable 

element  in  an  alkaline  reversible  battery  were  for  a 
lone  time  frustrated  by  the  facts,  determined  only 
after  exhaustive  experiments,  that  dried  oxides  of 
iron  were  not  reduo  ible  to  any  extent  by  the  our- 
rent;  that  spongy  iron  reduced  by  hydrogen  from 
different  iron  salts  was  not  oxidizable  to  any  con¬ 
siderable  extent  by  the  ourrantj  that  the  hydrates 
of  iron  were  very  bulky  and  difficult  of  use  without 

[drying,  which  operation  effected  some  obBoure  oharige 
therein  to  render  them  nearly  inert  in  the  presence 
of  the  reducing  current;  that  bulky  ferrio  oxide 
was  not  capable  of  any  considerable  reduction  by  the 
current;  and  finally,  that  ferrous  oxide,  though 
easily  reducible,  was  very  difficult  to  prepare  on 
acoount  of  atmospheric  oxidation." 

All  of  these  facts,  as  stated,  are  based  on  aotual 
experimental  work,  and  the  statements  have  been  made  only 
after  their  truth  has  been  completely  verified.  The  Exam- 

|.ner  does  not,  nor  will  he,  dispute  the  oorreotness  of  any 
ine  of  these  allegations  of  fact,  for  the  reason  that  in  ap- 
'lioant's  prior  case  filed  December  88,  1900  (sinoe  aban- 
.oned  and  of  which  this  is  a  continuation),  the  Examiner  re¬ 
vested  applicant  to  furnish  evidence  to  substantiate  these 
tatements,  whereupon  the  Examiner  was- invited  to  the  Edison 
aboratory  and  the  truth  of  each  was  demonstrated  by  aotual 


Having  decided  to  use  iron  as  the  active  element, 
having  found  that  reduced  spongy  iron  is  not  oxidizable, 
and  that  bulky  ferrio  oxide,  dried  ferrio  oxides  and  dried 
ferrio  hydrates  are  not  reducible  to  any  considerable  extent, 
those  materials  had  to  be  excluded,  leaving  ferrous  oxide  as 
the  only  material  capable  of  use.  As  already  stated,  how- 

Eer,  ferrous  oxide  la  extremely  difficult  to  prepare,.,  on 
count  of  atmospheric  oxidation.  At  the  time  of  the  fil- 
g  of  the  present  application,  the  preferable  process  of 


I  preparing  ferrous  oxide  suitable  for  use  none is tad  in  finely 
crushing  iron  monosulphide,  mixing  it  with  powdered  flake 
graphite  or  other  inert  conducting  material,  paoking  the 
mass  in  perforated  pockets  or  receptacles  made  of  nickel  or 
nickel-plated  steel  so  as  not  to  ho  affeoted  by  the  elec¬ 
trolyte,  and  subjeotine  the  mass  to  alternate  electrioal 
oxidation  and  reduction  so  as  to  eliminate  the  sulphur. 

This  resulted  in  the  production  of  what  is  supposed  to  be 
ferrous  oxide,  which  was  capable  of  being  reduoed  to  the  met¬ 
allic  fora  when  subjected  to  the  charging  current  and  of  be¬ 
ing  oxidized  to  the  ferrous  condition  during  the  discharging 
operation.  More  recent  developments  have  produced  improved 
processes  for  obtaining  the  right  kind  of  oxide,  which  has 
the  property  of  being  acted  on  by  the  current. 

The  oxide  of  iron  employed  by  applicant,  and  which 
'•  is  eleotrolytioally  reducible,  has  been  generally  referred  t> 
as  “ferrous  oxide8,  but  later  experiments  have  led  applicant 
to  suppose  that  possibly  the  oxide  may  be  in  a  lower  condi¬ 
tion  of  oxidation  than  the  ferrous  state  and  may  have  the 
formula  IFegO.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  it  is  of  a  low¬ 
er  condition  of  oxidation  than  ferrio  oxide,  and  if  it  is 
not  ferrous  oxide  it  very  olpseiy  approximates  the  chemical 
formula  of  the  latter.  Applioont  describes  the  way  by  whidi 
the  oxide  is  produced,  so  that  it  is,  of  course,  unimportant 
to  positively  identify  it  by  itB  chemical  formula.  The 
production  of  ferrous  oxide,  or  a  new  oxide  if  it  be  such, 
capable  of  electrolytic  oxidation,  was  the  result  of  pure 
discovery  on  applicant's  parti  In  making  the  testB  for.an 
operative  iron  compound,  electrodes  were  made  utilizing  all 
known  iron  combinations,  and  these  electrodes  were  opposed  by 
an  ordinary  copper  oxide  depolarizer.  It  was  found  that  : 
none  of,  them  worked.  When,  however,  the  current  was  revem,  id 

— - - - ■ —  ■  '  -  ■  .  ft  Set _ : _ -  ■  ■ 


through  the  oells,  It  was  discovered,  upon  again  attempting 
to  discharge,  that  the  cell  using  the  monosulphide  combina¬ 
tion  gave  slight  results.  Applicant  then  found  that  hy.  ox¬ 
idising  and  reducing  the  monosulphide  in  the  alkaline  elec¬ 
trolyte  to  eliminate  the  sulphur,  a  condition  of  oxidation 
was  produoed  whioh  was  operative  for  the  purpose. 

Thus  the  Examiners-in-rChief  will  see  the  process  by 
which  the  new  active  material  was  reached.  In  the  first, 
place,  objectionable  types  of  batteries  had  to  be  exoluded, 
and  a  new  and  theoretically  perfect  typo  devised.  In  the 
sepond  plaoe,  those  metals  which  could  not  be  used,  for  one 
reason  or  another,  had  to  b8  eliminated,  narrowing  the 
field  of  utility  to  oadaium,  iron  and  copper.  Hext,  of 
these  three  metals  cadmium  and  oopper  were  exoluded,  the 
first  beoause  of  its  expense  and  the  seoond  because  of  its 
low  voltage;  so  that  at  last  iron  was  settled  upon.  And 
finally,  of  the  many  iron  compounds,  the  lower  oxide  alone 
was  found  to  he  suitable  for  the  purpose,  and  that  only  by 
experimental  discovery,  as  stated.  Even  with  this  discov¬ 
ery  made,  further  experiments  were  necessary  in  order  to  ; 
get  it  in  the  proper  form  for  use  and  prevent  atmospheric 
oxidation,  and  also  to  obtain  the  maximum  effect  per  unit  of 
weight. 

Having  settled  upon  iron  as  the  oxidlssabla  or  active 
element  of  the  cell,  the  next  difficulty  met  in  the  devel¬ 
opment  of  the  battery  was  the  production  of  a  depolarizer 
suitable  for  use  therewith  in  an  alkaline  solution.  Prior 
to  applicant’s  invention,  oxide  of  copper  and  oxide  of  mer¬ 
cury  were  practically  the  only  available  depolarizers  for 
the  purpose.  Copper  oxide  used  as  a  depolarizer  with  iron 
develops  only  about  .45  of  .a  volt,  and  although  that  oxide, 
is  cheap  and  light,  the  low  voltage  necessitates  a  large  ir- 


oreaB*  of  weight.  furthermore  it  was  impossible,  prior  to 
applicant fs  experiments  in  the  art,  to  prepare  copper  oxide 
in  suoh  a  way  as  to  be  completely  insoluble  in  the  alkaline 
solution  when  subjected  to  electrolytic  action.  Merourio 
oxide  employed  as  a  depolarizer  with  iron  develops  from  .85 
to  .90  of  a  volt,  but  its  weight  and  expense  are  also  high, 
neither  of  these  available  depolarizers  when  used  with  iron 
appeared  to  offer  a  complete  solution  of  the  storage  battery 
problem,  although  applicant  has  filed  applications  describ¬ 
ing  the  employment  of  oxide  of  copper  as  a  depolarizer,  pre¬ 
pared  in  a  new  way  so  as  to  be  entirely  insoluble. 

In  searching  for  a  new  depolarizer  the  heat  of  forma¬ 
tion  of  whose  oxide  should  be  as  low  or  lower  than  that  of 
meroury,  applicant  found  after  a  large  number  of  experi¬ 
ments  that  a  certain  oxide  of  nickel  was  the  desirable  ele¬ 
ment,  on  account  of  its  cheapness  and  entire  insolubility  in 
an  alkaline  electrolyte;  but  the  preparation  of  a  nickel  com¬ 
pound  capable  of  operating  successfully  presented  as  great 
difficulties  as  were  met  with  in  the  work  on  the  iron  ele¬ 
ment.  It  was  found,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  metal  : 
itself,  when  finely  divided  (as  obtained  by  reduoing  a  nick¬ 
el  compound  by  hydrogen  or  electrolysis),  is  not  oxldizablc 
to  any  considerable  extent  when  subjected  to  eleotrolytio 
oxidation  in  an  alkaline  solution,  whioh  faot  is  stated  in 
the  specification  (page  8).  It  was  clear,  therefore,  that 
applicant  could  get  no  Information  by  analogy  from  the  de- 
?olari*ere  previously  used  in  alkaline  solutions,  beoause 
both  merotiry  and' copper  in  metallic  form,  when  finely  di- 
rided,  are  readily  oxidizable  elect w>lytioally  and  with  equal 
facility  revert  to  the  metallic  condition  upon  discharge. 


pinoe  finely  divided  nickel  oannot  be  oxidized  aa‘  stated, 
the  use  of  nickel  in  ways  analogous  to  the  employment  of  the 


1 


previous  depolarizer*  was  a  hopeless  and,  in  fact,  impossi¬ 
ble  problem.  In  many  forma  of  aoid  batteries,  as,  for  ex¬ 
ample,  in  the  ordinary  lead  accumulator,  the  depolarizing 
oxides,  instead  of  passing  to  the  metallic  state  and  vice 
versa.  P&ss  from  a  low  condition  of  oxidation  to  a  high  or 
peroxide  condition.  Applicant  was  able  to  get  no  help  even 
from  this  analogy,  because  it,  was  found  that  peroxide  of 
niofeel  (Nigtyj )  wan  absolutely  inert  for  depolarizing  pur¬ 
pose*5  •  After  making  a  great  many  experiments  in  this  line, 
during  which  the  attempted  use  of  nickel  was  given  trp  as 
hopeless  and  again  referred  to,  it  was  found,  purely  as  a 
result  of  discovery,  that  the  hydrated  lower  oxide  of  nickel 
or  the  hydrated  peroxide  thereof,  when  subjected  to  electro¬ 
lytic  oxidation  in  an  alkaline  solution,  was  either  rais.ed  to 
a  higher  state  of  oxidation  than  the  peroxide  condition  or 
else  acted  as  a  meohanioal  absorber  of  oxygen  in  some  unknown 
manner,  and  that  upon  discharge  it,  ,  reverted  to  a  lower  s  tate 
of  oxidation.  In  other  words,  it  was  rt 1b covered  that  if 
nickel  is  to  be  used  as  a  depolarizer  in  batteries  of  this 
type,  it  passes  from  a  low  to  a  super-peroxide  state  of  oxi¬ 
dation,  and  not,  like  oopper  and  meroury,  from  the  metallic 
state  to  an  oxide  and  vioa  versa,  or,  like  the  depolarizer* 
of  lead  batteries,  from  a  lower  oxide  to  the  peroxide  state. 
The  discovery  which  applicant  made  and  by  which  the  new  dcr 
polarizer  was  produced  was  brought  to  light  only  after  prac¬ 
tically  all  the  available  nickel  compounds  were  fully  exper- 
riented  with.  It  was  found,  as  stated  in  the  specification, 
that  nickel  sulphide  is  not  decomposed  by.  eleotrclysi*.  under 
the  conditions  of.  battery  work,  as-  the  analogous  iron  sul*r; 
IphidCj. and  further  that  even  when  the  black  nickel  peroxide 
)  is  produced  by.  he  at  re^otiotm,  so  aa  to  be  anhydrous, 
f*  48  Poetically  inert  and  does  not  absorb  oxygen  to  any  rrt 


practical  extent,  like  the  hydrated  oxides,  whert  subjected  tc 
eleotrolytid  action.  It  may  be  stated  that  bo  far  as  ap¬ 
plicant  known,  he  is  the  first  to  suggest  the  possibility  of 
using  oxide  of  nickel  as  a  depolarizer  in  a  storage  battery 
employing  an  alkaline  solution  and  wherein  during  the  charg¬ 
ing  operation  the  oxide  is  raised  to  a  condition  of  oxidation 
beyond  the  peroxide  state  ofc  else  acts  as  a  raeohanioal  absorb¬ 
er  of  oxygen. 

Having  made  the  discovery  in  oonneotion  with  oxide 
of  niokel,  the  close  analogy  to  that  element  of  cobalt  led 
applioant  to  assume  that  oxides  of  oobalt  would  act  in  the 
same  way,  which  surmise  was  verified  by  experiment. 

In  his  application,  applioant  describes  a  common  way 
of  producing  the  hydrated  oxide,  consisting,  generally,  in 
preoipitating  either  the  monoxide  or  the  black  hydrated  dir 
oxide  of  either  niekel  or  oobalt,  washing  the  precipitate 
free  from  the  produo ts  of  the  reaction,  filtering  off  the 
liquid,  and  drying  the  precipitate,  the  resulting  dried  hy¬ 
drated  oxide  being  then  finely  powdered. 

Briefly  stated,  then,  applicant's  improved  storage 
battery  is  of  the  alkaline  type,  employing  the  liquid  only 
as  a  conductor,  its  active  or  oxidizable  element  being  fine¬ 
ly  divided  ferrous  oxide,  or  else  some  unknown  oxide  lower 
in  oxygen  than  the  ferrous  condition,  and  (employing  as  the; 
depolarizer  or  oxygen-furnishing  element  a  hydrated  oxide  of 
niokel  or  cobalt  capable  of  being  raised  to  a  higher  or  sup¬ 
er-peroxide  state  of  oxidation  on  oharging.  When  in  a  dis¬ 
charged  oondltioii, '  the  negative  eleotrode  is  in  a  condition 
of  ferrous  oxide  and  the  positive  eleotrode  is  in  a  condition 
of  ordinary  blabk  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel  or  oobalt.  Ber¬ 
ing  charging,  tbie.  ferrous  oxide  is  reduoed  to  the  metallio 
state  and  the .  oxi^of :  nickel  or  cobalt  raised  to  a  higher 


state  of  oxidation  than  the  sesquioxids  or, as  it  in  some¬ 
times  oalled, the  peroxide  state. 

In  order  that  the  current-conductive  capacity  of  the 
active  materials  may  ho  sufficiently  high,  applicant  mixes 
thorn  with  rooited  proportionn  of  flake  graphite  or  other 
inert  conducting  material.  In  practice,  the  finely  divided 
particles  of  the  active  materials  fora  a  thin  coating  or  ;  , 
layer  upon  the  graphite  scales.  Tho  blocks  or  compressed 
masses  of  the  active  materials  are  then  received  in  perfor¬ 
ated  pockets  or  receptaoles  made  of  nickel  or  of  iron  or  .; 
■steel  nickel-plated  so  as  to  he  insoluble  in  the  electro¬ 
lyte,  thus  completing  the  cells.  It  was  found,  with  the 
nickel  oxide  particularly,  that  whan  subjected  to  a  charging 
current  so  as  to  be  further  oxidized,  a  considerable  expan¬ 
sion  in  bulk  took  place,  with  a<:  consequent  contraction  on 
discharge.  It  was,  therefore,  necessary  to  siipport  the  ac¬ 
tive  materials  in  pockets  or  receptacles  having  elastic  pallj, 
which  maintained  good  electrical  contact  with  «ie  aotive  ma¬ 
terials  at  all  times,  irrespective  of  bulk  thereof. 

In  order  that  generic  claims  might  be  made  to  the 
new  depolarizer,  the  broad  expression  "a  hydrated  oxide  of 
a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron*  is  employed,  the 
specification  stating  that  by  this  expression  is  meant  eith¬ 
er  a  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel  or  of  cobalt.,  or  both.  It, ip 

unnecessary  for  us  to  consider,  tho  claims  in  detail.  Olaiw 
1  and  2  cover  broadly  the  new  depolarizer,  consisting  of 
"a  hydrated  oxide  of  a  specific  magnetio  metal  other  than 
iron*.  Claim*  13,  14,  15,  28,  32  and  83  cover  the  depolar¬ 
izer,.  defined  as  "an  oxide  of  a  specific  magnetio  metal  oth- 
er  than  iron  and  capable  of.  furnishing  oxygen  for  the  oxida¬ 
tion  of  the  iron  on  discharge'',  however  that  limitation  may 
be  expressed.  Claims  4,  5,  21  and  29  cover  as  the  depolar- 
-10- 


lzer  "an  oxide  of  niokel  *  •  *  having  when  charged  elac- 

trolytloally  more  oxygen  than  Ni^Og"  (niakcl  peroxide),  how¬ 
ever  that  limitation  my  he  expressed.  Claims  7,  8,  28  and 
30  are  limited  to  "a  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel".  Glaim  19 
covers  somewhat  more  broadly  "oxide  of  niokel  capable  of  . 
furnishing  oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  dis¬ 
charge".  Claim  10  covers  broadly  the  new  oxidizable  ele¬ 
ment  consisting  of  “electrolytloally  active,  finely  divided 
iron  *  *  *  oapable  of  being  oxidized  on  discharging",, 

i.  e. ,  metallic  iron  eleotrolytioally  reduced  from  the  fer¬ 


rous  oxide.  Claim  11  oovers  broadly  "finely  divided  forrous 
oxide  *  *  *  capable  of  being’ deoxidized  on  charging".. 


Claim  12  covers  broadly  "an  oxide  of  iron  *  *  *  electro- 
lytlcally  reducible  to  the  metallic  state  upon  charging*. 
Claim  20  oovers  broadly  the  combination,  in  an  alkaline  so¬ 
lution,  of '"finely  divided  oxide  of  iron  whan  discharged" 
on  one  electrode,  and "an  Sxide  of  nickel"  on  another  elec¬ 
trode.  Claims  27  and  31  are  not  limited  to  the  partloular 
active  materials  and  are  as  followB:- 


"27.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  rever¬ 
sible  galvanic  battery,  comprising  a  perforated  con¬ 
ducting  receptacle  having  elastic  walls  and  an  active 
material  therein  engaged  by  said  walls  with  an  clas¬ 
tic  pressure,  substantially  as  set  forth." 


“51.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  a  suit-, 
able  electrolyte,  an  active  material  therein  which  in 
charging  or  discharging  is  alternately  increased  dr 
decreased  in  bulk,  a  perforated  oondueting  receptacle 
holding  the  material  and  having  elastic  walls  which 
at  all  times  engage  the  material  with  an  elastic 
pressure,  and  another  conducting  support  carrying  a 
different  actiya  material,  substantially  as  set 
forth." 


These  oomprise  all  the  claims  whioh  have  been  re-.; 
jeoted.  Of  these  claims,  the  first,  second,  fourth,  fifth, 
seventh,  and  eighth  cover  individually  the  depolarizer  ex-, 
pressed  gonerioally  and  specifically;  the  tenth,  eleventh 
and  twelfth  cover  the  oxidizable  element  generioally  aiid.jsped- 

■  '  -ilr.  '  . ,  jfcj- 


ifically;  and  all  the  other  claims  exoept  the  twenty- 
seventh  and  thirty-first  (which  are  quoted  above)  cover  the 
combination  of  the  n.lokel  and  iron. 

iPor  the  sake  of  convenience:,  it  is  only  necessary  to 
determine,  first,  whether  or  not  the  prior  art  describes, 
with  sufficient  fullness  to  enable  a  skilled  person  without 
experiment  to  carry  it  into  effect, the  employment  on  the  neg¬ 
ative  side  of  ferrous  oxide  or  other  Iron  oxide  capable  of 
being  electrolytioally  reduced  to  the  metallic  Btate,  or, 
finely  divided  iron  capable  of  being  elootrolytioally  oxi¬ 
dised  upon  discharge;  second,  whether  the  references  of  • 
record  disclose  with  the  same  requisite  fullness  the  employ¬ 
ment,  aa  a  depolarizer,  of  a  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel  or 
cobalt  capable  of  being  raised  to  a  higher  or  super-peroxide 
state  of  oxidation,  and  that,  such  oxide  was  intended  to  be 
actually  bo  used;  and  third,  whether  the  references  of  rec¬ 
ord  diaolose  with  the  same  requisite  fullness  the  employ-: : 
went  in  a  storage  cell  of  perforated  conducting  receptacles 
or  pockets  having  elaBtio  waIIb  which  at  all  times  engage  ' 
the  active  material  with  an  elastic  pressure. 

The  Examiner  rejeots  the  claims  on  the  iron  compound 
upon  U.  S.  patent  to  Lalande,  No.  274,110,  and  on  German 
patent  to  Poliak,  Bo.  107; 727;  •  he  rejects  the  claims  on  the 
depolarizer  on  British  patents  to  Abel,  No.  1862  of  1887, 
and  to  Kiohalowski,  No.  15,370-  of- 1899;-  and  he  rejeots  the 
claims  on  the- alas tic  pooket  feature  on  the  ha land e  patent; 

U.  8.  patent  to  Hamilton  No.  619,885,  and  British  patent  to 
Jungnor  No.  7892  of  1099.  Those  patents  will  be  considered 
In  thin  order. 

IAT.ANDB.  PATENT.  ' 

The  Lalands  primary  battery  is  of  a  wall-known  type, 
and;  in  faot,  for  a  number  of  year*  Hr.  Edison  has  been  the 

_ _  -la- _ 


only  manufacturer  In  this  country  of  the  "Ialande"  or  "Edi- 
eon-Ialande"  battery,  under  a  license  from  the  patentees. 

If  anyone  in  this  country,  therefore,  understands  the  oper¬ 
ation  of  the  Ialande  oell,  wa  submit  that  the  applicant  is 
that  person. 

The  Ialande  battery  made  use  of  oxide  of  copper  as 
the  depolarizer  and  a  zino  plate  ap  the  oxidiaable  element. 

On  discharge,  the  copper  oxide  is  reduced  to  the  metallic 
state  and  the  zino  is  oxidized,  the  oxide  being  dissolved  in 
the  electrolyte.  The  Ialande  patent  states  that  the  piles 
in  question 

"are  reversible  —  that  is  to  pay,  oapable  of  being 
recharged  by  an  eleotrio  current  of  sufficient  elec¬ 
tromotive  force”. 

TOien  subjected  to  a  charging  current,  zino  will  be  plated  oui 
of  the  solution,  as  in  the  alkaline  sinoate  batteries,  and 
the  metallic  copper  again  oxidized,  but  the  sine  plating  wli: . 
be  poor  and  non-coherent,  so  that  as  a. storage  battery  1*e 
Islands  cell  has  never  been  a  commercial  artiole.  Ialande' s 
statement  of  the  reversibility  of  his  battery  wob  a  reference 
only  to  a  theoretical  scientific  fact,  and,  not  to  a  com¬ 
mercial  possibility. 

Although  the  Ialande  battery  is ,  and  always  has  been 
a  oopper-xino  oell  and  the  patent  states  that  "we  prefer 
generally  zino,  which  give*  the  greater  eleotromotive  fo,rce" 
the  patentee,  as  is  usually  the  case,  described  other  oxldl- 
zable  elements.  These  substitute  oxldizable  elements  are 
of  two  olasse*:-  Eirst,  active  metals,  such  as  tin  and 
lead,  and  .second,  hydrogen  mechanically  oarried  by  "palla¬ 
dium,  platinum,  spongy  platinum,  iron  reduced,  or,  as  well, 
copper  obtained  by  precipitation  or  Sleotrochemioal  reduc¬ 
tion". 

As  we  read  the  Ialande  patent,  the  statement  that 

'  -w- 


|  "the  active  electrode  of  tho  pile  la  constituted  by 

a  metal  oapable  of  being  attacked  by  the  exciting 
liquid  of  the  pile  when  the  oirouit  is  cloned  —  .for 
example  *  •  •  a  metal  capable  of  fixing  the  hy¬ 

drogen  ao  •  *  »  iron  reduced", 

the  olear  meaning  ie  that  reduced  iron  is  employed  solely 
for  the  purpose  of  mechanically  absorbing  or  fixing  the  hy¬ 
drogen,  which  latter  ie  the  element  to  be  oxidised  on  dis¬ 
charge.  The  Examiner,  however,  argues  that  the  olear.  and 
undisputed  meaning  of  the  La lands  patent  is  that  reduced 
iron  alone  is  described  as  a  suitable  oxldiaable  element. 

We  Bubmit  that  the  Examiner's  construction  of  the  patent  is 
not  that  which  would  be  reached  by  a  reading  of  the  speci¬ 
fication,  and  that  at  best  the  specification  is  too  obscure 
and  doubtful  on  the  point  to  constitute  a  reference.  Furth¬ 
ermore,  we  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  applicant  states 
in  his  specification 

"that  spongy  iron  reduced  by  hydrogen  from  different 
iron  salts  was  not  oxidlsable  to  any  considerable 
extent  by  the  current", 

so  that  even  if  the  Examiner's  interpretation  of  the  Lalande 
patent  is  correct,  merely  an  inoperative  and  ineffective 
suggestion  is  made,  and  this  has  bean  shown  by  experiment  to 
the  Examiner.  It  seems  to  us  that  it  would  be  going  too  fax 
to  say  that  the  Lalande  patent  desoribee  the  specific  iron 
compound  which  applicant  has  found  is  alone  operative  for 
the  purpose,  namely,  farrouB  oxide  or  iron  reduced  from  SuOl 
an  oxide  eleotrolytioally. 

POLIAK  PATENT. 

The  Poliak  patent  ie  one  with  which  we  were  entirely 
familiar  at  the  time  it  was  cited  by  the  Examiner,  as  it  had 
previously  been  referred  to  by  the  German  Patent  Off loe  in 
connection  with  applications  pending  before  that  bureau. 

The  Poliak  patent  ie  a  remarkable  instance  of  a  theory  which 
has  absolutely  no  foundation  in  foot.  The  invention  it. 


hopelessly  inoperative  in  every  direction. 

TWint  Poliak  sought  to  do  was  to  oonstruot  a  storage 
battery  using  porous  iron  for  both  eleotrodes,  one  being 
oxidized  and  the  other  reduoed  by  the  charging  current,  the 
reverse  operations  talcing  place  on  discharge.  If  two  plates 
of  oonpresBed  iron  oxide,  having  been  brought  to  a  glow  heal , 
as  described  by  Poliak,  are  put  in  a  solution  of  an  alkali, 
one  the  positive  and  the  other  th®  negative,  and  subjected  10 
the  current,  absolutely  ho  effect  takes  plaoe,  except  that 
oxygen  and  hydrogen  gas  are  given  off  from  the  eleotrodes 
supporting  the  plates.  She  current  does  not  raise  the  oxi¬ 
dation  of  the  iron  oxide  on  one  pole,  and  the  oxide  of  iron 
used  by  the  patentee  is  not  reducible  to  metallic  iron  at 
the  other  pole.  The  plates  when  prepared  by  the  process  oJ 
heating  suggested  by  Poliak  will  be  formed  of  ferric  oxide. 
and  this  when  heated  and  subjected  to  the  eleotrib  current 
in  alkaline  solutions  is,  for  either  pole,  as  absolutely  in-' 
ert  as  so  much  sand.  Manifestly,  if  it  would  be  possible 
to  use  ordinary  ferric  oxide  as  Poliak  describes,  Edison 
would  not  employ  the  roundabout  prooeas  of  making  ferrous 
oxide  as  he  describes.  So  far  as  we  know,  it  was  absolutely 
new  with  Ed 1b on  to  employ  finely  divided  iron  in  condition 
for  use  in  a  storage  battery.  8uoh  an  iron  oompound  is 
certainly  not  suggested  by  Poliak,  who  describes  ordinary 
anhydrous  ferric  oxide,  which,  ae  stated  in  the  specification 
and  as  has  been  demonstrated  by  the  Examiner  by  aotual  ex¬ 
periment,  is  utterly  and  hopelessly  inert. 

So  far,  therefore,  as  the  patents  to  La land*  and 
Poliak  are  concerned,  we  submit  that  they  do  . not'  show  either 
■eleotrolytioally  active,  finely  divided  iron  *  •  »  .,*a- 
pahl#  of  being  oxidized  on  discharging",  or  “finely  divided 
ferrous  oxide  -•  •  *  capable  of  being  deoxidised  on  chan;- 


ins" »  or  "an  oJtt&w  of  iron  *  *  ®  eleotrolytlaally  reduc¬ 

ible  to  the  metallic  state  upon  charging®,  as  is  reoited  in 
dlaimB  10,  11  and  12,  and  we  think,  therefore,  that  such 
olaima  are  clearly  patentable.  If  these  broad  claims  are 
allowed,  the  other  olaias  covering  the  iron  compound  are,  we 
submit,  alBO  allowable. 


The  Abel  patent  relates  primarily  to  an  alkaline 
z inoat e  battery  wherein  aino  from  the  solution  is  plated  on¬ 
to  a  suitable  electrode  upon  charging,  and  by  means  of  a  BUit 
able  depolarizer  is  dissolved  upon  dieoharging.  As  before 
stated,  the  common  depolarizers  in  use  with  alkaline  solu¬ 
tions  prior  to  applicant's  invention  were  oxide  of  oopper 
and  oxide  of  mercury,  both  of  whioh  revert  to  the  metallic 
state  ifloon  discharge.  Instead  of  referring  particularly  to 
those  well-known  depolarizers,  the  patentee  states  that  he 


"a  metallio  oxide  or  peroxide  insoluble  in  oaustio 
alkali  solution,  or  hydrates  of  suoh  oxides,  which 
have  the  property  of  passing  to  a  higher  stage  of 
oxidation  by  combining  with  oxygen" , 

and  as  suitable  materials  for  the  purpose  he  refers  to  oxides 
of  silver,  oxides  of  oopper,  peroxide  of  manganese,  protox¬ 
ide  of  niokel,  teroxlde  of  nlokel,  protoxide  of  oobalt,  and 
oxide  of  bismuth.  Of  all  the  compounds  referred  to  by  the 
patentee,  the  only  ones  whioh  oan  be  used  as  a  depolarizer 
in  the  way  applicant  describes  are  the  hydrated  oxide  of 
niokel  and  the  hydrated  oxide  of  cobalt. 

It  seems  dear,  however,  that  Abel  did  not  Intend  or 
expeot  .to  employ  a  depolarizer  as  applioant  does,  and  to 
raise,  the  niokel  oxide  to. a  super-peroxide  condition.  .It 
is  incredible  that  if  suoh  was  hi»  intention  he  should  have 
failed  to  mention  the  very  remarkable  fact  that  nickel  or 


Cobalt  could  'be  rained  beyond  the  peroxide  state.  As  we 
read  the  Abel  patent,  it  describes  nothing  new.  He  says 
that  he  may  use  as  a  depolarizer  either  an  insoluble  metallic 
oxide,  or  an  insoluble  metallio  peroxide,  or  the  "hydrates 

I  of  euoh  oxides,  whioh  have  the  property  of  passing  to  a  high¬ 
er  stage  of  oxidation  by  combining  with  oxygen".  That  many 

oxideB  and  their  hydrates  can  pasB  to  higher  Btages  of  oxi¬ 
dation  was  well  known  long  before  Abel,  and,  in  faot,  such  a 
reaction  takes  place  in  the  ordinary  lead  accumulator,  whore-  • 
in  lead  peroxide  is  fomed  upon  charging.  In  the  next  par¬ 
agraph  of  his  patent,  Abel  refers  to  the  employment  of  oxide 
of  copper  as  an  addition  to  niokel  protoxids  (HJfiO),  be¬ 
cause  lie  says  the  oopper  "as  peroxide  or  acid  *  •  •  ae- 

slats  and  accelerates  the  higher  oxidation  of  the  other  bod¬ 
ies  by  its  readineflB  to  part  with  oxygon".  Here  Abel  re¬ 
fers  specifically  to  the  lower  oxide  of  niokel,  and  not  to 
the  peroxide.  He  does,  not  make  it  Clear  that  the  raising 
of  the  lower  oxide  to  a  higher  or  peroxide  state  wae  ex¬ 
pected  to  be  performed  by  the  current,  but  he  apparently  us¬ 
es  oxide  of  oopper  to  effeot  that  result.  The  raising  of 
a  hydrated  oxide  of  niokel  beyond  the  peroxide  condition  can¬ 
not  be  effected  by  the  employment  of  any  oxidising  means 
other  than  an  eleotrie  current,  so  that  we  have  a  further 
reason  for  the  statement  that  Abel  did  not  expeot  to  raise 
the  oxide  of  niokel  to  d  super-peroxide  state.  In  describ¬ 
ing  the  operation  of  his  cell,  Abel  states  that  — 

.  ,  ar*  in  consequence  hereof  converted 

into  the  higher  combinations  with  oxygen  *  •  •  . 

*n  die  charging.  the  operation  is  reversedi  ■gfitt*  high- 
®r  “^SCn  «ombinatlons  previously  formod  beoomlhg 


I  It  seems  to  us  that  if  Abel  had. made  the  disoovery  that  ox- 
ddd  of  niokel  could  be  raised  to  a  higher  state  of  oxidation 
than  the  peroxide  form,  he  would  have  so  stated  in  his  pat- 


ent,  and  would  not  have  made  a  statement  which  applies  di~ 
redtly  to  analogous  operations  occurring  in  ordinary  lead 
aooumulatora .  Unices  the  oxide  of  niokel  is  raised  to  a 
higher  state  of  oxidation  than  the  peroxide  form,  it  is.sn- 

Itirely  inort  as  a  depolarizer  and  cannot  he  used  as  such. 
Applicant  so  states  in  hie  application  (page  9}:- 

1  "®he  black  oxide  of  nickel  (Ni203)  obtained  in' 

any  manner  known  to  me  does  not  of  itself  aot  as  * 
depolarizer  to  any  extent  with  zinc  in  a  reversible 
galvanic  battery  using  an  alkaline  solution*. 

This  f aot  has  been  demonstrated  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
Examiner. 

In  Watts*  Dictionary,  three  forms  of  oxide  of  silver 
are  referred  tp.  Eour  oxides  of  copper  and  five  oxides  of 
bismuth  are  known.  Erom  this  It  will  be  seen  that  Abel 
refers  to  at  least  fifteen  different  oxides,  whioh  number  . 
will  be  doubled  when  the  question  of  hydrates  is  considered. 

Viewing  the  Abel  reference  in  the  aspect  most  unfa¬ 
vorable  to  applicant,  it  can  only  be  said  to  refer  to  the 
two  compounds  employed  by  applicant  in  a  category  including 
at  least  twenty-eight  others,  all  of  which  are  entirely  un¬ 
suitable  for  the  purpose.  Oxides  of  biBmuth  and  of  silver 
are  so  soluble  in  ainoa^e  solutions  of  alkalies  that  it, is 
practically  impossible  to  plate  zinc  from  the  solution  in  a 
coherent  form  so  as  to  be  used  in  a  storage  battery.  Bi«r 
muth  oxides  of  various  kinds  can  be  made  ohemioally  and 
uaed,  but-  if  made  eleotrioally  they  roduoe  with  auoh  diffi¬ 
culty  that  the  voltage  would  be  lower  than  when  the  common 
copper  oxide  depolarizer  of  the  Lalande  battalia  used,  and 
their  employment,  therefore,  would  be  a  positive' detriments 
Moreover,  neither  bismuth  oxides  nor  silver  oxides  can  .baS, 
raised  to  a  higher  state  of  oxidation  by  the  -  current  when. .in 
a  solid  state  and  in  alkaline  solutions.  ,,  ?ero?cide  of  manga¬ 
nese  cannot  be  raised  to'  a  higher  state  of  oxidation  ohemi- 


daily  or  by  the  current.  It  Is,  In  fact,  absolutely  Inert 

In  an  alkaline  solution.  In  many  chemical  reactions  perox¬ 

ide  of  manganese  parts  with  its  oxygen  to  assist  in  oxidation 
of  other  materials,  without  Itself  changing,  in  which  re¬ 
spect  it  is  like  peroxide  of  oobalt,  but  in  alkaline  solu¬ 
tions  wider  the  conditions  of  a  storage  battery  it  does  not 
BO  aot.  If  protoxide  of  niokel  is  to  be  mixed  with  oopper 
or  teroxide  of  nickel  is  to  be  so  used,  neither  aote  as  a 
transferrer  of  oxygen,  as  the  patentee  states.  She  same  is 
true  of  protoxide  of  oobalt,  although  peroxide  of  oobalt  acts 
as  such  an  aeent,  but  not  in  alkaline  solutions.  The  ox¬ 
ides  of  copper  are  reduced  to  the  metallio  state  by  the  cur¬ 
rent,  and  not  from  lower  to:  higher  forma  of  oxidation. 

So  far  a*  we  have  considered  the  Abol  patent,  it  ap¬ 
pears  that  of  the  thirty  combinations  referred  to  only  two 
are  oapable  of  use,  viewing  the  patent  in  the  aspoot  most 
unfavorable  to  applicant;  but  the  true  interpretation  of  the 
Abel  specification,  as  we  view  it,  is  still  less  favorable 
to,  the  Examiner's  contention,  because  it  seams  to  have  been 
the  aim  of  the  patentee  to  raise  the  depolarizing:  oxide  only 
to  a  peroxide  state,  not  by  electrolytic  oxidation,  but  by 
the  employment  of  an  additional  oxidizing  moauB,  suOh  as  ox¬ 
ide  of  copper,  which  oould  not  be  done  in  alkaline  solution. 

In  many  other  respects  the  Abel  patent  is  ambiguous, 
misleading  and  mistaken.  Eor  instance,  thi  patentee  states 
that  on  discharging  from  the  battery  the  oxides  revert  to  • 
lower  stage  of  oxidation.  This  statement  is  entirely  in¬ 
correct,  sinoe  silver,  copper  and  bismuth,  the  oxides  of 
which  metals  are  all  referred  to,  revert  to  the  metallio 
(State-  The  patent  also  says  that  instead  of  using  zinc  in 
the.  .electrolyte  oxide  of  lead  oan  be  es^loyed,  whldhwill . 
plate  out  on  the  eleotrode.  Rad  the  e^erimient  been  tried, 
-19c  '  '  • 


the  patentee  would  have  found  that  only  filaments  of  lea* 
are  formed  under  such.  conditions,  that  no  coherent  coating 
takes  place,  and  that  instead  of  tho  oxides  which  are  re¬ 
ferred  to  being  raised  to  a  higher  state  of  oxidation,  per¬ 
oxide  of  lead  would  be  deposited  ort  the  positive  pole  out  of, 
the  solution  simultaneously  with  the  deposition  of  lead  on 
the  negative  pole,  while  tho  various  so-called  depolarizers 
referred  to  would  not  be  acted  on  at  all.  Abel  also  says 
.  In  hia  patent  that— 

“instead  of  using  asino  or  lead,  any  other  metal  may¬ 
be  used  Which  will  combine  with  the  alkaline  solution 
on  closing  the  circuit,  such  as  tin  in  the  form  of 
stannate  of  potash  or  soda.* 

This  statement  is  also  inoorreot,  since  aluminum,  for  exam¬ 
ple,  combines  even  better  than  sine,  hut  it  cannot  bo  plated 
back, and  there  are  many  other  metals  of  the  same  character. 

In  order  that  the  Abel  patent  can  be  regarded  as  a 
reference  to  the  claims,  it  will  be  necessary,  first,  to 
discard  from  consideration  all  but  two  of  the  thirty  depolar¬ 
ising  materials  referred  to,  and  to  regard  the  patent  as  es¬ 
pecially  calling  attention  to  hydrated  oxides  of  niokel  arid 
cobalt;  second,  it  must  be  definitely  determined  that  the 
depolarizers  so  used  are  eleotrolytically  oxidized,  although 
the  more  probable  explanation  seems  to  be  that  the  intention 
was  to  use  oxide  of  copper  to  effect  this  result;  third, 
it  must  be  f ound  that  Abel  describes  the  raising  of  oxide  of 
nickel  or  cobalt  to  a  super-peroxide  state,  and  Intended  to 
accomplish  that  result;  aril  finally,  the  many  errors,  in¬ 
sufficiencies  and  ambiguities  of  the  patent  must  be  passed 
over  as  of  no  importance.  Vo  submit  that  under  all  the  au¬ 
thorities  a  patent  of  this  vague  and  indefinite  character 
,  ought  not  to  be  successfully  relied  upon  in  anticipation  of 
a  specific  definite  and  important  invention. 


-SO- 


AUTHORITIES  ON  BUCTIOIENCY  OJ  DESCRIPTION  OF  PRIOR 
PATENTS  OR  PUBLICATIONS. 


In  the  leading  authority,  Seymour  v,  Osborne. (11 
Wall.  316),  the  Supreme  Court  atated  the  rule  of  law  In  the 
following  language  (p.  355): 

"Patented  Inventions  oannot  he  superseded  by  the 
mere  introduction  of  a  foreign  publication  of  the  kind, 
though  of  prior  date,  unless  the  description  and  draw- 
00n^?in  exhibit  a  substantial  representation 
of  the  patentodimprovement,  in  suoh  full,  clear,  and 
exact  terms  eb  to  enable  any  porson  skilled  in  the  art 
or^soienoe  to  which  it  appertains,  to  make,  construct,  i 
and  practice  the  invention  to  the  same  praotioal  extent 
as  they  would  be  enabled  to  do  if  .the  information  was  ' 
derived  from  a  prior  patent.  Mere  vague  and  general 
representations  will  not  support  such  a  defence,  as  the! 
knowledge  supposed  to  be  derived  from  the  publication  ™ 
must  be  suffioient  to  enable  those  skilled  in  the  art 
or  science  to  understand  the  nature  and  operation  of 
tee  invention,  and  to  oarry  it  into  praotioal  use. 
Whatever  may  be  the  particular  .circumstances  under 
which  the  publication  takes  plaoe,  the  account  pub¬ 
lished,  to  be  of  any  effect  to  support  suoh  a  defence, 
must  be  an  aooount  of  a  complete  and  operative  inven¬ 
tion  capable  of  being  put  into  praotioal  operation." 

The  rule  thus  established  by  the  Supreme  Court  has  been  tee 
standard  by  whioh  the  Courts  have  universally  measured  the 


sufficiency  of  prior  patents  and  publications  as  anticipa¬ 
tions.  The  reports  are  full  of  opinions  applying  this 
rule,  and  it  is  therefore  lmpraotioablo  to  refer  to  more 

I  than  a  few  oases.  The  rule  has  been  explained  and  ampli¬ 
fied  in  various  ways;  as  for  instanoe,  in  some  oases  the 
Courts  have  said  that  the  prior  description  must  be  suffi¬ 
cient  to  enable  the  result  to  be  reached  "without  experiment''} 
in  other  oases,  and  referring  particularly  to  a  foreign  pat¬ 
ent  or  foreign  publication,  the  Courts  have  said  that  the 
description  oannot  be  supplemented  by  local  knowledge  or  the 
looal  art  as  it  existed  in  the  foreign  country}  in  other 
oases  tee  Courts  have  said  teat  the  prior  description  must 
be  suffioient  to  enable  the  result  to  be  reached  "without 
-31- 


I  aid  from  the  patent  in  auitnj  in  other  oases  the  Courts 
have  called  attention  to  the  faot  that  if  any  uncertainty 
exists  as  to  what  the  prior  description  means,  the  doubt 
must  be  solved  in  favor  of  the  patent  in  suit;  and  as  an¬ 
other  way  of  stating  the  same  proposition,  the  Courts  in 
other  oases  have  said  that  the  prior  description  must  be 
such  that  the  deBired  result  "can  be  oertalnly  arrived  at“ 
by  following  that  description.  These  liberal  rules,  or 
liberal  statements  of  the  oommon  rule,  have  usually  been 
applied  in  oases  of  patents  which  have  really  created  some¬ 
thing  which  the  art  as  practiced  did  not  before  possess. 
The  Courts  reoognize  the  faot  that  after  a  practical  result 
has  once  been  attained  and  prior  descriptions  are  read  with 
that  result  in  mind,  the  most  striking  resemblances  are  dis¬ 
covered,  although  the  art  never  saw  the  desired  thing  in 
those  descriptions  prior  to  the  date  of  the  patent  which  is 
sought  to  be  defeated.  Hence  they  have  refused  to  give 
such  prior  descriptions  the  effect  of  anticipations  unless 
they  are  entirely  definite  and  certain  and  show  that  the 
prior  experimenter  had  beyond  doubt  reaohed  the  goal. 

As  Judge  Putnam  said  in  Chase  v.  Pillebrown  (88  P.R. 
374,  378) : 


„  one  wh°  has  worthily  revived  something 

useful  by  his  own  original  genius  merely  beoause  it  has 
beoome  practically  lost  in  some  foreign  and  forgotten 
publication,  is  sufficiently  hard  without  extending  the 
i®*  «?fli4as  th®  I!!111®  S®?011*1  ita  Proper  construction. 
Rev.  St.  8eos.  4886,  4920,  excluding  inventions  and 
discoveries  whioh  have  appeared  in  foreign  and  other 
publications  or  patents,  relate  only  to  improvements 
patented  or  desorlbed' .  ThiB  phraseology  ifc  not 
ordinarily  met  by  showing  that  the  subjeot-matter  of 
the  new  patent  was  merely  embraced  or  hidden  away  in 
what  is  claimed  to  have  anticipated  it." 

?he  description  is  not  sufficient  if  the  result  under  oon- 


ilderation  is  merely  "ambraoed  or  hidden  away"  in  the  prior 
leBoriptlon,  or  if  it  is  simply  inoluded  by  general  language 
-22- 


In  a  eohedule  made  up  largely  of  things  which  are  valueless, 
heoause  a  prior  experiment er  may  have  an  absolutely  worth¬ 
less  idea  and  may  follow  the  description  of  that  worthless 
idea  by  a  schedule  of  numerous  other  things  which  he  has 
never  tried  and  which  may  be  found,  when  the  successful  re¬ 
sult  is  aooomplished,  to  inolude  that  suooessful  result  by 
general  statement.  The  art  is  not  furnished  by  such  a  de¬ 
scription  with  the  successful  thing,  but  must  oontinue  itB 
investigations  and  experiments  until  the  goal  is  reached. 

In  Amerloan  Oraphophone  Co.  v,  Leeds  <87  E.R.  873) 
the  Bell  &  Tainter  patent  was  in  suit,  oovering  the  wax 
phonograph  record  and  the  loosely  mounted  or  gravity  repro¬ 
ducer.  An  English  patent  granted  to  Edison  was  set  up 
among  other  defences,  and  this  deSoribed,  with  reference  to 


the  wax  record,  the  employment  of  "paraffine  or  other  hydro¬ 
carbons,  waxes,  gums,  or.  lacs"  for  the  reoording  surfaoe, 
and  also  suoh  material  covered  with  thin  metal  foil.  The 
patent  also  referred  to  various  metals  and  metallic  composi¬ 
tions  for  the  Bame  purpose,  but  .it  was  not  regarded  as  a 
good  anticipation  for  the  definite  invention  of  sound  record 
formed  in  wax  or  waxlike  material.  On  the  point  of  the 
loosely-mounted  or  gravity  reproducer,  the  Edison  English 
patent  contained  numerous  illustrations  of  reproducers,  some 
of  which,  although  not  so  specifically  desorlbed,  might  bo 
regarded  as  operating  on  the  same  principle  as  the  Bell  $ 
Tainter  device.  The  Court  (Shipman,  C.J. )  said: 

"This  patent  contained  some  of  the  suggestions  and 
sketohes  of  various  sorts  and  kinds  which  Mr.  Edison 
had  thought  of  or  had  made  during  his  experiments  upon 
a  subject  novel,  intricate  and  scientific,  which  re- 
<p  ired  manifold  and  delicate  experiments,  and  in  which 
he  took  a  great  interest.  ;  Some  of  his  surmises  and 
beliefs  in  regard  to  what  oould  be  or  might  be  done 
were  thrown  into  this  patent.  »  •  *  •  *  • 

These  descriptions  are  confessedly  vague,  and  it  is 
|  confessedly  difficult  to  know  the  interpretation  which 


-23- 


Co.  (88  E.R.  268),  the  Cirouit  Court  of  Appeals  for  the 
Second  Cirouit  had  under  consideration  a  patent  of  Westing- 
house  on  a  freight  train  air  brake  system,  whioh.  was  distin¬ 
guished  from  an  earlier  patent  to  Westinghouse  by  a  some¬ 


what  simple,  but  very  important,  difference.  In  the  EngliSi 
patent  on  the  earlier  device,  Westinghouse  had  added  by  a 
single  sentence  a  statement  of  a  modification  not  illustrat¬ 
ed  in  the  drawings,  whioh  was  oapable  of  being  interpreted 
as  referring  to  the  later  improvement;  but  the  Court,  in 
view  of  the  importance  and  suoeess  of  the  later  invention 
and  the  failure  of  the  brake  mechanism  of  the  prior  patent, 
refused  to  find,  in  thiB  brief  unillUBtrated  statement,  the 
substance  of  the  later  invention.  Upon  thiB  situation,  the 
Court  made  the  following  observations: 

"The  successful  character  of  the  invention  described 
in  the  later  patent  has  been  universally  recognized  in 
the  litigations  upon  it  *  •  *  }  and  its  im¬ 

portance  at  the  date  of  the  invention,  in  view  of  *the 
practical  failure  of  the  brake  meohanism  of  the  pre¬ 
vious  patent  in  the  teats  upon  long  freight  trains, 
oannot  be  doubted.  The  prophetical  suggestions  in 
English  patents  of  what  oan  be  done,  when  no  one  has 
ever  teBted  by  aotual  and  hard  experience  and  under  the 
stress  of  competition  the  truth  of  these  suggestions, 
or  the  praotioal  difficulties  in  the  way  of  their  ac¬ 
complishment,  or  even  whether  the  suggestions  are  feas¬ 
ible,  do  not  oarry  oohviotion  of  the  truth  of  these 
frequent  and  vague  statements.  The  nature  and  oharao- 
'  ter  of  the  invention  of  376,837  (the  patent  in  suit) 
were,  in  the  reoord  heretofore  before  this  Court,  put 
to  rigorous  tests  by  examination  and  oross- examination 
in  Court}  and  the  result  which  was  then  reached  is  not 
shaken  by  merely  a  single  sentence  in  the  English  paten:. 

-24- 


An  interesting  contribution  to  the  discussion  of  the 
rule  of  low  under  consideration  iB  that  furnished  hy  Judge 
Core  in  the  recent  case  of  Badiaoho  Anilin  &  Soda  Fabriic  y. 
Kails  (94  B.E.  165).  The  invention  was  a  blue  dye  stuff 
made  by  washing  safranine-azo-naphthol  until  the  impurities 
which  rendered  it  insoluble  were  washed  out  and  the  oempound 
became  soluble.  The  patent  was  on  the  ubo  of  the  soluble 
safranine-azo-naphthol  as  a  blue  dye  stuff.  The  anticipa¬ 
ting  German  patent  met  the  conditions  of  the  patent  in  suit 
if '  the  produot  of  the  German  patent  was  a  soluble  one.  The 


German  patent  itself  stated  that  the  produot  was  Insoluble, 
but  the  defendants  Insisted  that • that  was  an  error  in  the 
description,  beoause  the  produot  was  in  faot  soluble.  Judge 
Goxe  said,  regarding  thiB  contention: 

’‘If  prior  patents  and  publications  can  be  recon¬ 
structed  by  extrinsic  evidence  to  fit  the  exigencies 
of  the  oase,  the  enquiry  will  no  longer  be  confined  to 
what  the  publication  oommunicates  to  the  public,  but 
it  will  be  transferred  to  an  endeavor  to  ascertain  what 
its  author  intended  to  communicate.  The  question  is, 
'what  does  the •gublisatleu- prior  publication  say?  Hot 
what  it  might  hav.e  said  or  what  it  Should  have  said. 

The  Court  has  simply  to  consider  what  the  publication  in 
question  has  contributed  to  the  art.  If  it  fails  to 
show  the  invention  which  it  is  said  to  anticipate,  the 
:  oontention  that  itB  author  knew  enough  to  write  an  an¬ 
ticipation  and  intended  to  do  so,  was  grotesquely  ir¬ 
relevant.  Were  suoh  a  rule  established,  the  law  upon 
this  subjeot  would  be  thrown  into  inextrioable  oonfu- 


I  Another  oontention  of  the  defendants  was  that  sinoe  the 
safranine-azo-naphthol  is  made  soluble  by  simply  washing  th< 
impurities  out  of  it,  and  sinoe  that  was  an  obvious  thing  t< 


do,  there  was  no  invention  after  the  use  of  safranine-azo- 
naphthol  had  been  suggested  for .a  blue  dye  stuff  to  use  it 
in  the  soluble  fora,  oven  if  the  prior  suggestion  to  use  it 
as  a  dye  stuff  had  referred  to  the  insoluble  form.  Judge 
Goxe  disposes  of  this  argument  by  convincing  reasoning. 
Among  other  illustrations  he  gives  one  particularly  perti- 
-88- 


nent  to  the  present  oaae: 

"For  example,  should  Borne  material  he  discovered 
which  solves  the  Btorage  battery  problem,  it  is  hardly 
to  be  presumed  that  he  who  confers  this  benefit  upon 
mankind  will  be  denied  a  patent  baaause  the  material 
on  whioh  he  operated  was  well  known  and  his  prooeBB 
had  been  used  before  on  other  materials  to  produoe  dif¬ 
ferent  results. " 

Judge  Coxe  had  decided  a  number  of  Btorage  battery  oases, 
and  he  seleoted  this  illustration  as  one  whioh  would  be  ao- 
oepted  without  question.  Edison  has  oonf erred  that  benefit 
upon  mankind  by  his  investigations  oulminating  in  the  inven¬ 
tion  described  in  the  present  application. 

Judge  Coxe's  decision  in  the  blue  dye  oase  was  sus¬ 
tained  by  the  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  (104  E.R.  802),  which 
stated  the  rule  of  law  applioable  to  prior  patents  and  de¬ 
scriptions  to  bs  that — - 


"that  deBorlption  must  be  suoh  as  to  show  that  the  arti¬ 
cle  described  in  the  patent  can  be  certainly  arrived  at 
by  following  the  description  (Atlantic  Co.  v.  Parker, 

16  Blatoh.  295;  Bed.  Cas.  So.  625)  without  the  assis¬ 
tance  of  looal  prior  knowledge  or  local  prior  use  in 
the  foreign  country  where  the  description  was  published. 


The  oase  of  Atlantlo  Co.  v.  Parker  referred  to  by 


the  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Second  Cirouit  in  the 
quotation  Juet  made,  is  a  well  considered  oase  of  Judge 
Blatdhford  on  one  of  Nobels  dynamite  patents,  where  Nobels 
produot  would  have  been  found  in  a  prior  description  if  a 
person,  in  attempting  to  praotioe  that  prior  description, 
had  selected,  for  the  "common  Swedish  gun  powder"  referred 
to  in  the  prior  description,  a  definite  one  of  a  number  of 
gun  powders  embraced  by  the  general  language  employed. 

Judge  Blatohford,  in  rejecting  the  prior  description  as  an 
anticipation,  said: 

“The  prior  deBorlption,  to  Invalidate  the  patent, 
muat  be  suoh  as  to  show  that  the  artiole  described  in 
the  patent  can  be  oertalnly  arrived  at  by  following 
the ■ prior  description: and  it  is  not  enough  to  show 
that  by  the  luoky  aooident  of  taking  gun  powder  of  the 
^ality,  a  oompound  may  be  obtained  which  is  un¬ 
like  that  indicated  by  such  description. " 

-26- 


In  aonsidering  the  sufficiency  of  a  prior  desorip- 
tion  to  anticipate  a  ohemioal  product  or  proooas  incapable 
of  illustration  by  drawings,  It  is  audbtauDz  evident  that 
;  the  description  being  unaided  by  illustration,  as  it  would 
be  in  the  case  of  an  invention  relating  to  apparatus,  the 
Court  must  find  the  invention  described  with  absolute  ac- 
ouraoy  by  the  language  of  the  description;  otherwise  prac¬ 
titioners  of  the  art  oannot  reach  the  result  without  experi- 
mant.  So  in  chemical  oases,  the  Courts  have  applied  the 
rule  laid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  Seymour  v.  Osborns 
with  greater  severity  than  in  mechanical  oases.  In  con¬ 
sidering  the  analogous  proposition  as  to  what  definiteness 

of  description  would  bo  required  in  a  ohemioal  patent  to 
a 

support  the  claim  and  make  the  patent Nvalid  one,  the  Courts 
have  also  applied  a  rigid  rule.  These  latter  oases  are 
pertinent  to  the  present  enquiry,  baoauae,  as  stated  by 
Judge  Coxe  in  the  blue  dye  stuff  esse  (94  I’.R.  167) : 

"A  description  whioh  is  insufficient  to  support  a 
patent  can  hardly  be  relied  on  as  an  anticipation.  In 
each  instance  the  same  precision  is  required." 

A  few  of  these  oases  will  be  referred  to. 

In  ?ood  v.  Underhill  (6  How.  1,  8),  the  Supreme 
Court,  in  discussing  a  patent  for  a  new  compound  for  making 
brick  or  tile,  held  that  "the  patent  would  be  void"  if  the 
proportions  of  the  oompowrid  war ^ etatgd.  vaguely Jeciausp _ 

"*W  one  oould  use  the  -invention  without  asoertaining  by 
experiment  the  exact,  proportion  of'  the  different  in¬ 
gredients  required'’, 

and  the  patent  was  declared •invalid  on  this  ground. 

On  the  same  ground  the  patents  wsra  declared  invalid 
by  the  Supreme  Court  in. Tyler  v.  Boston  (7  Vail.  327),  Btad 
t.  Jeantet  (129  U.S.  883).  and  Howard  v.  Detroit  Stove  Worica 
(180  tT.S.  164). 


-27- 


In  the  Inoandesoont  Lamp  Patent  (169  U.S.  468),  the 
Supreme  Oourt  had  before  it  the  Sawyer  &  Man  patent  on  in- 
oandeseent  electric  lamps.  This  patent  described  specifi¬ 
cally  the  use  of  carbonized  paper  as  the  incandescent  con¬ 
ductor,  and  made  general  statements  that  fibrous  vegetable 
materials  generally  could  be  used  for  the  purpose.  It  in¬ 
cluded  a  broad  claim  to  the  incandescent  conductor  of  a  oar- 
bonlaed  fibrous  or  textile  material.  The  defendant’s  lamp 
waB  Edison's  lamp  having  an  inoandeaoent  conductor  made  of 
carbonized  bamboo.  It  appeared  in  the  ease  that  only  a 
few  of  the  vegetable  fibers  were  suitable  for  the  purpose, 
and  that  Edison  had  hit  upon  bamboo  after  an  investigation 
of  over  six  thousand  vegetable  growths,  resulting  in  finding 
that  only  two  or  three  were  at  all  suitable.  The  Court 
said  (p.  473) : 

[  “WaB  everybody  then  precluded  by  this  broad  claim 

j  from  mating  further  investigation?  We  think,  not . “ 

Again  (p.  474): 

“The  question  really  is,  whether  the  imperfectly 
suooesBful  experiments  of  Sawyer  and  Man  with  carbonized 
paper  and  wood  oarbon,  conceding  all  that  is  olaimed 
for  them,  authorized  them  to  put  under  tribute  the  re¬ 
sults  of  the  brilliant  discoveries  made  by  others." 

Again  (same  page): 

"Under  these  circumstances,  to  hold  that  one  who 
had  discovered  that  a  certain  fibrous  or  textile  mate¬ 
rial  answered  the  required  purpose,  should  obtain  the 
right  to  exoludo  everybody  from  the  whole  domain  of 
fibrous  and  textile  materials  and  thereby  shut  out  any 
further  efforts  to  disoovor  a  better  specimen  of  that 
olass  than  the  patentee  had  employqd,  would  bo  an  un¬ 
warranted  extension  of  his  monopoly  and  operate  rather 
to  discourage  than  to  promote  invention.  ir  Sawyer 
and  Mart  had, discovered  that  a  certain  oarhonized  paper 
would  answer  the  purpose,  their  olalm  to  all  carbonized 
paper  would  perhaps  not  beextravagantj  but  the  fact 
that  paper  happens  to  belong  to  the  fibrous  kingdom 
did  not  invest  them  with  sovereignty  over  this  entire 
kingdom,  and  thereby  praotieally  limit  other  experi¬ 
menters  to  the  domain  of  minerals." 

Of  the  numerous  Cirouit  Court  oases  on  tho  same 
proposition,  only  two  will  bs  referred  to. 

-38- 


In  Veiling  v.  Crane  (14  S’.R.  571),  a  patent  for  an 
improved  composition  resembling  horn  said  that  it  was  oom- 
posed  of  ehellao  and  vegetable  or  animal  fiber,  and  at  an¬ 
other  point,  of  ehellao  and  cotton,  wool  or  other  animal  or 
■vegetable  fiber.  Judge  Rixon  held  the  patent  void,  point¬ 
ing  out  (p,  573): 

"An  attempt  has  been  made  to  limit  the  construction 
of  these  specifications  to  an  article  formed  from  the 
mixture  of  ehellao  with  cotton  f look  in  the  proportions 
named  in  the  patent.  The  reason  of  sudh  an  attempt 
is  obvious.  If  it  fairly  includes  in  the  materials 
to  be  used  all  animal  or  vegetable  fibers,  the  pat¬ 
ent  must  be  declared  void  for  olaiming  too  muoh. " 

And  again  (p.  576): 

"It  is  a  fact  which  ought  not  to  be  overlooked  that 
the  specifications  of  the  Veiling  patent  give  no  hint 
to  the  public  that  in  using  the  patent  any  better  mate¬ 
rial  can  be  obtained  from  the  ootton  than  from  the  wool. 

In  Matheaon  v.  Campbell  (78  T’.R.  910),  the  Circuit 
Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Seoond  Circuit  had  before  it  the 
"naphthol  black"  patent  covering  a  coloring  compound  produc¬ 
ed  from  coal  tar;  The  patent  stated  that  the  oompound 
might  be  produced  by  the  employment  of  "any  aulpho  aoid  of 
any  radioal",  a  term  which  was  sufficiently  broad  to  oover 
one  hundred,  possibly  as  many  as  five  hundred,  different 
aulpho  acids,  and  it  was  proved  and  conceded  that  very  many, 
in  fact  nearly  all,  of  these  will  not,  when  treated  according 
to  the  patentee's  process,  produoe  the  patentee's  color. 

The  patent,  however,  did  describe  specifically  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  one  radioal  which  was  operative,  a  radical  however 
not  used  by  the  defendant.  The  question  was,  whether  the 
general  claim  of  the  patent  to  fa  new  product,  tho  herein 
described  dye  stuff  or  coloring  matter  of  a  black  oolor  and 
oapable  of  dyeing  shades  of  dark  blue"  could  be  supported 
by  the  description.  The  Court  said: 


-29- 


"In  other  wordB,  having  himself  experimented  only 
with  three  or  four  bodies  out  of  a  group  of  hundreds, 
he  proposes  to  Bet  himself  in  the  pathway  of  future 
experimenters  with  any  or  all  of  the  other  bodies,  end, 
as  the  result  of  each  new  experiment  is  disclosed,  will 
fire  away  at  it,  oaloulatlng  to  'hit  it  if  it  iB  a  deor 
and  misB-if  it  is  a  oow'  •  •  •  The  inventors 

did  not  make  any  auoh  'broad  discovery' .  They  made 
the  specific  discovery  that  some  di-sulpho  ao!4s  treat¬ 
ed  aooordlng  to  their  process  would  produoe  their 
produot.  The  broad  discovery  that  all  sulpho  acids 
may  be  thus  transformed,  they  certainly  did  not  dis¬ 
cover,  for  it  is  apparently  undisooverablo  since  most 
of  them  cannot  be  thus  transformed  by  the  process  of 
the  patent.  Some  future  experimenter  will  have  to 
make  some  new  discovery  and  invent  some  new  process 
before  these  other  sulpho  acids  can  be  transformed  into 
naphthol  blank.  We  are  referred  to  no  authority  and 
know  of  no  principle  which  will  sustain  the  complain¬ 
ant's  contention  that  he  can  thus,  in  the  language  of 
the  Circuit  Court,  'speculate  on  the  equivalents  "of  hi* 
olaimed  invention  and  thereby  oblige  the  public  to  re¬ 
sort  to  experiments  in  order  to  determine  the  scope  of 
the  claims  of  his  patent'.11 


MICHALOTOKI  PATENT. 

In  considering  the  Abel  patent,  it  in,  of  oourao, 
very  difficult  to  view  the  reference  in  any  other  light  than 
that  which  we  hays  at  the  present  time.  It  nay  "be  stated , 
however,  that,  from  all  sources  of  information  at  applioant *s 
disposal,  it  was  not  known  prior  to  his  invention  that  the 
hydrated  oxides  of  nickel  and  of  cobalt  did' have  the  remarka¬ 
ble  property  of  passing  from  lower  to  higher  super-peroxide 
stages  of  oxidation  and  vloe  versa,  when  subjected  to  electro - 
lytic  action  In  an  alkaline  solution.  If  Abel  had  made  this 
disoovery,  it  seems  remarkable,  to.  cay  the  least,  that  the 
chemical  world  allowed  it  to  pass  unnoticed.  In  the  consid¬ 
eration  of  the  Abel  patent,  the  test,  of  course,  is  whether 
or  not  at  the  time  of  its  grant  a  s^f  full' anil  oidar 

description  of  the  process  was  given  the  world  to  enable  a 
skilled  person  to  carry  it  into  effect  without  independent 
experiment.  it  is  generally  a  difficult  end  largely  specu¬ 
lative  matter  to  answer  such,  a  question  in  view  of  present 
knowledge,  or,  in  other  words,  to  pint  ourselves  in  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  a  skilled  person  at  that  tike.  Fortunately,  how¬ 
ever,  the  present  oa»«  offers  an  exception  to  the  usual  rule. 

Mlchalowski,  whOBC  patent  was  applied-  for  in  1899, 
was  fully  .Informed  of  the  Abel  patent,  or  rather  the  corres¬ 
ponding  German  patent  to  Dun,  No.  38,883  (Abel  being  the 
name  of  the  patent  solicitor  to  whom  the  invention  was  com¬ 
municated  at  London).  Miohalo^ki,  in  His  British  patent  of 
record,  said:- 

*The  endeavor  to  replace  the  heavy  lead  stor¬ 
age  batteries  by  batteries  of  lighter  material  Has 
led  to  the  discovery  of  the  alkali-siiiie  battery. 

By  the  use  of  sino  in  place  of  the  negative  plate .  of 
spongy  load,  the  negative  electrode  becomes  three 
times  se  light 'as  if  made  of  lead)  but  hitherto,  the 
requirement  of  .a  Bui.tabla  polarisator  as  a  substi- 
for  _  the  plate  peroxide '  of -  lead  ramains'.uji- 

aatinfied.  the  fact,  theft  the  alkdll-sino.  batteries 


Iwra  'bo  an  known  for  nsarly  twenty  years  without  tar¬ 
ing  boon  able  to  replace  the  lead  batteries  in  spite 
of  the  moot  diligent  effort*,  ear-res  as  a  proof  that 
an  actually  suitable  material  for  thV'p'oBltlve  elec¬ 
trode  haa  not  hitherto  been  discovered.  TUf'fo'rfa  in 


this  direction  have  not  been  wanting,  and  UP  to  now 
almost  every  existing  metallic  oxide  (not  excepting 
aluminum  and  manganese  oxides)  have  been  proposed  as 
depolarisators  for  this  purpose.  Ae  an  example  of 
these  inventions  may  be  cited  the  German  patent  Ho. 

.  38,383  of  Alfred  Dun  of  Frankfort  a.H.  (correspond¬ 
ing  to  the  Abel  patent  of  reoord).  In  this  patent 
oxides  of  copper,  cobalt,  nickel,  bismuth,  manganese 
and  others  have  been  used,  evidently,  however,  withe- 
out  any  indication  that  the  inventor  tae  made  a  trial 
of  the  effect  of  these  bodies,  because  had  he  done 
bo  he  would  at  once  have  recognised  that  only  one'  of 
these  oxides  distinguishes  itself  from  the  others  irt 
every  respect  by  its  distinctive  and  valuable  proper 
ties.  This  is  oxide  of  nickel  (BigG^).  Further, 
throughout  the  electrochemical  literature  published 
UP  to  date,  no  indication  of  its  action  is  to  be 
found,  and  yet  nevertheless  the  fact  that  it  is  the 
only  one  amongst  all  hitherto  known  metallic  oxides 
which  is  formed  from  nickel  sub-oxide  with  absorptloi 
of  heat  and  is  oonceauently  an  endothermic  compound, 
Bhould  have  attracted  attention.  For  such  a  body 
*111*  usod  as  a  depol&risator,  render  poa- 

sible  the  complete  transformation  of  the  heat  of  ox¬ 
idation  of  the.  sine  into  electric  energy,  whilst  in 
the  case  of  all  other  depolarizator* ,  whioh  are  of 
exothermic  origin,  a  large  proportion  of  the  heat  of 
Oxidation  of  the  sine  is  wasted  in  the  reduction  of 
the  depolarisator. * 

We  aujtoiit  that  if  anybody  oould  have  attained  suc¬ 
cess  from  the  Abel  English  patent  or  the  Dun  German  patent, 
it  was  Hichalowaki,  since  from  purely  theoretical  reasons  ho 
appeared  to  recognise  the  value  of  the  depolarizing  proper¬ 
ties  of  oxide  of  nickel.  Two  conclusive  criticisms  as  to 
Michalowskl  can  be  mada:- 

Eirst,  with  the  NichalowSki  call,  the  nickel  perox¬ 
ide  (HiaQfc)  is  opposed  t,o  a  zino  plate.  When  sino  is  em¬ 
ployed  a*  an  active  element,  the  battery  is  assumed  to  be  in 
a  charged  condition,  as,  for  example,  in  the  La  lands  battery, 

;  whore  a  sine  plate  is  opposed  to  a  copper  oxide  depolarisor. 
Ho  one  would  think  of  oharglng  suoh  a  battery,  because,  ae 
s  tated,  the  sine  1*  already  in  a  charged  and  aotiire  condi- 
“  If,  therefore,  Miohalowaki  intended  to  ubo  the  oxide 


of  nickel  aa  a  depolarizer  without  firBt  raialng.it  to  a 
highor  stage  of  oxidation,  ho  would  moot  with  complete  fail¬ 
ure,  since  ouch  oxide  of  itself  haa  no  depolarising  proper¬ 
ties  whatever. 

Second,  with  the  Miohalowski  process,  the  nickel  ox¬ 
ide  la  formed  in  every  inatance  hy  heat  reactions.  It  is 
not  hydrated,  hut  is  anhydrous.  Actual  tests  before  the. 
Examiner  have  demonstrate*  the  faot  that  when  the  oxide  is 
bo  made,  even  when  aa  attempt  In  made  to  charge  it,  it  is.  : 
not  raised  to  a  higher  state,  hut  ia  practically  insert  ah* 
;of  no  value.  Theoretically  it  should  work  hut  it  does  not 
do  so. 

The  Miohalowski  patent  is  specifically  distinguished 
from  in  the  specification,  those  differences  are  pointed. out, 
they  have  been  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Primary.  Ex¬ 
aminer,  and  in  his  letter  of  rejection  of  Kay  7th  he  states 
that  the  reference  will  he  withdrawn  when  the  data  upon  which 
the  statements  of  its  Imperativeness  are  baaed  have  been 
specified.  It  eeeras  to  us  that  tha  statements  In  the  spec¬ 
ification  that  blaek  oxide  of  nixkol  will  not  aot  aa  a  do- 
polar  is  er  and  that  when  made  by  heat  reactions  it  oannpt  be 
further  oxidised  pughi  to  be  accepted  an  sufficient.  The  , 
principal  value  of  the  Kichalowski  patent  is  to  show  that  , 
having  carefully  read  and  considered  the  Abel  reference,,  the 
later  inventor  was  atill  unable  to  achieve  suooese.  Hiohal- 
oW^ki  must  be  regarded  as  a  skilled  person  to  whom  the  Abel 
patent  was  submitted  and  who  failed  absolutely  to  scours  any 
useful  effect  from  anything  which  Abel  described.  It  seems 
t,o  ua,  therefore,  that  when  the  Abel  patent  ie  considered  :, 
alone  with  its  many  errors  and  insufficiencies,  and  when  both 
patents  are  considered  together  with  the  known  relation  ..b.e- 
tween  the  two  inventors,  neither  patent  can  be  stwoteefully 

a.3 


rolled  on  as  an  anticipation  of  the  olnims  on  the  improved 
depolarizer. 

HAMILTON  PATBHT. 

With,  applicant's  battery  the  active  materials*  as 
stated,  are  oarried  within  receptacles  or  pookets  having, 
thin  perforated  walls.  During  the  charging  and  die charging 
operations  the  aotive  materials  are  increased  and  diminished 
in  bulk.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  depolarizing  nickel 
oxide,  which  in  addition  swells  considerably  by  absorption 
when  first  immersed  in  the  electrolyte.  It  is,  of  course, 

:  necessary  that  the  aotive  materials  -should  be  maintained  ..in 
good  electrical  contact  with  the  walla  of  the  pockets  or  , 
receptacles  at  all  times,  because  otherwise  the  efficiency 
of  the  battery  will  be  correspondingly  affected.  Applicant 
therefore  makes  the  pockets  or  receptacles  of  thin,  highly 
elastic  metal,  such  as  spring  steel  nickel-plated,  so  as  to 
be  unaffected  by  the  electrolyte,  and  the  bulk  of  the  aotive 
material  is  so  proportioned  relative  to  the  elasticity  of 
the  pocket  walls  that  any  changes  in  the  volume  of  the  active 
material  will  be  maintained  within  the  elastic  limits  of 
suoh  walls.  The  construction,  though  simple,  is  of  the 
highest  importance  in  a  Commercial  sense.  The  Hamilton  pat¬ 
ent  describes  several  small  minor  details  of  improvement  in 
the  ordinary  Lalande  primary  cell,  using  aino  and  copper  ox¬ 
ide. 

In  referring  to  the  modifications  shown  in  figures 
3  and  4  the  patentee  states  that  the  cathode  consists  of  a 
oup  "of  wire  gauze  or  perforated  sheet  metal,  as  copper*, 
and  that  the  depolarise?  is  carried  or  supported  therein  * in 
a  lcose  or  granular  few.*  This  1b  not  an  anticipation  of 
the  invention  or  of  the  terms  of  claims  27  and  31.  W  ttia 
first  place,  a  cup  of  ifira  gauze  or  perforated  chest  copper 
■  ■  -:3V- 


would  not  Toe  highly  elastic,  and  could  not  he  need  with  a 
Storage  battery  of  the  type  BUggestod  by  applicant.  In. the 
second  place,  since  the  Hamilton  oell  is  a  primary  battery, 
there  oan  be  no  expanaion  in  hulk  of  the  oopper  oxide,  hut 
only  a  contraction  thereof  as  it  in  reduced  to  the  metallic 
State.  Being  granular  in  firm,  the  particles  will  b imply 
»,ettle  within  the  cup  as  they  contract  in  size,  so  that  an 
jelastio  walled  receptacle  would  not  he  necessary. 


JimgCT,R  BATBHJ. 

The  Jungner  patent  describes  a  reversible  cell  em-' 
[ploying  silver  peroxide  an  tho  depolarizer,  with  oopper  as' 
the  electro -negative  material.  The  patent  states  that  the 
|  depolarizer 

“in  powder  is  pressed  into  a  net  of  nickel  wire  arid 
made  to  adhere  by  any  suitable  binding  material,  its 
porosity  bolng  preserved  5  »  Tho  negative,  pole 

is  formed  by  a  Copper  wire  net,  into  which  finely 
divided  copper  is  pressed,  -  as  -in  the  other  elac- 
trodg>*  (p.  5,  line  16  et  sefrD  • 

|We  submit  that  the  statements  quoted  can  have  no  other’ mean, 
irig  than  that  the  actiVe  materials  are  made  to  adhere  to. -the 
enclosing,  metallio  net  l)y  BOtte  suitable  binding  material: 
which  does  not  affect  the.,poroBity  of  the  aotive  material. 
Kiis  being  so*  there  is,  of  Course,  no  necessity  of  using  "ion 
-•  elastio  walled  receptacle,  since  the  receptacle  and  the.ac- 
material  will  adhere  together  and  cannot  separate  under 
y  ^  offset,,  of  expansion  and  contraction.  A  net  madeibff||  • 
l  l‘^kel  or  copper  wire  wotOA  ^ertainly  be  almost  devoid  of.;.'. 

;  daBtloity  and  any  considerable:  variation  in  bulk  of  the/atf- 
!  ;'ive  material  would  be  highly  objectionable,  unless*  ast^e 
:  latent  states,  a  binding. material  ia  employed  to  pane#. W' 
•qtive  Substance-  to  adh»r»  to  the.nieJcal  or  copper  wires;’-/', 

"n  rt»**n*  l*sht  the  Jungner'  patent  may  be  regarded,  we/ba- 
4***  it  oaraiqt  be.  considered  a  good  reference  to  , the; 

^  '  •  •  34-  ‘  '  '  "  ' 


I 


.  specific  language  of  the  claima  against  which  it,  hao  been 
particularly  oited. 

OONChTBIOHS. 

V/e  have  shown  that  Edison  has  produced  a  battery  of 
a  new  type  and  have  pointed  out  the  principal  difficulties 
•which  were  encountered  by  him  in  its  development.  It  has 
been  explained  how,  as  a  roault  of  experimental  discovery,  a i 
oleo troly t ioally  active  iron  oompownd  was  at,  laBt  found 
which  oould  be  usrsd  as  the  oxidizable  element  of  a  reveraibli 
coll  employing  an  alkaline  solution}  that,  iron  oompound  is 
either  ferrous  oxide  or  some  oxide  of  iron  closely  analogous 
,  thereto.  We  have  indicated  how,  as  a  result  also  of  discov 
ery,  it  was  found  that  the  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel  or  oo- 
bait  could  be  raised  to  a  condition  of  oxidation  actually,  be¬ 
yond  its  peroxide  state,  and  when  in  that  condition  possosso. 
valuable  depolarising  properties ,  not  possessed  by  nickel  or 
ooba.lt  iii  previously  known  forms.  Such  a  result,  we  be¬ 
lieve,  was  an  entirely  now  discovery  in  chemistry}  it  was 
certainly  a  new  discovery  In  the  art  with  which  we  are  deal¬ 
ing. 

In  considering  the  halande  patent  we  pointed  out 
that  the  "reduced  iron"  described  by  him  was  unquestionably 
used  only  as  a  mechanical  carrier  for  the  hydrogen,  the  lat¬ 
ter  metal  being  oxidized  on  discharge.  Even  if  such  an. 
assumption  is  not  the  correct  one ,  we  have  explained  that 
suoh  reduoed  iron  cannot  be;  oxidized  eleotrolyt ioally,  and 
that  faot  was  demonstrated  by  experiment  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  Examiner. 

Bo  far  as  the  German  patent  of  Poliak  ie  concerned, 
we  have  pointed  out  that  the  cell  described  by  the  patentee 
is  hopelessly  inoperative  and  have  shown  why  no  useful  rosull 
oeuld  be  obtained  therefrom.  It  has  also  been  explain*® 


that  tfte  ferrio  oxide  oleotrodoa  described  by  Poliak  are  ab¬ 
solutely  inert  to  elootrioal  action  in  an  alkaline  solution, 
•which. fact  has  also  been  demount rated  to  the  Examiner. 

We  then  took  up  the  English  patent  of  Abel  and 
pointed  out  its  many  errors  of  fact;  we  explained  that  of 
the  thirty  depolarising  materials  desoribed  by  him  only  two 
could  be  used;  we  called  attention  to  th9  fact  that  In  no 
instance  did  the  patentee  seek  to  carry  the  oxidation  of  a 
depolarizer  beyond  the  peroxide  state,  nor  did  he-  apparently 
recognize  the  possibility  of  doing  so,  and  we  finally  Bhowed 
that  Abel's  apparent  intention  was  not  to  oxidize  the  depo¬ 
larizer  eleotrolytically,  but  to  effect  that  result  by  the 
addition  of  a  separate  oxidizing  material. 

Regarding  Miohalowski, .  we  hare  pointed  out  the  rela¬ 
tion  between  that  patentee  and  Abel,  who  preceded. him,  and 
hare  drawn  the  conclusion  that  if  anyone  ought,  to  have  at¬ 
tained  success  from  Abel’s  work  Miohalowski  was  that  person. 
We  showed  further,  and  the  fact  has  been  demonstrated  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  Examiner,  that  Miohalowski  did  not 
attain  success,  although  he  specifically  recognised  the 
theoretical  value  of  niokel  oxide  as  a  depolarizer.  Our 
criticisms  of  the  Miohalowski  patent  were  that  the  black 
nickel  peroxide  obtained  by  him  could  not  of  itself  apt  as  * 
depolarizer  whan  opposed  to  a  zinc  plate;  and  second,  that 
suok  nickel  peroxide  oould  not  be  raised  to  a  super-peroxld* 


state  because,  as  described  by  Miohalowski,  it  is  anhydrous, 
and,  therefore,  praotioally  inert. 

In  considering  the  Hamilton  patent  we  pointed  out 
that  it  relates  to  a  primary  battery,  wherein  the  ftepolariasr 
could  not  undergo  an  expansion  in  bulk;  that  a  reoeptaOl* 
of  oopper  wire  or  sheet  copper  is  employed  ih  which  th* 

I  granular  topper  oxide  is  placed,  and  that  in  discharging 


3  7 


/ 


V 


the  metallic  copper  particlee  would  simply  gravitate  to  the 
■bottom  of  the  receptacle,  so  that  there  would  he  no  necessi¬ 
ty  of  making  the  latter  with  elastic  walls.  Finally,  in 
our  consideration  of  the  Jungnar  patent,  we  explained  that, 
both  of  the  active  materials  of  the  patentee  are  oavwed  to 
adhere  by  a  separate;  binding  substance  to  nickel  or  copper 
nets,, so  that  no  possiblo  separation  between  the  two  could, 
take  place  however  much  the  active  materials  might  expand  or 
.contract. 

Ve  submit,  therefore,  that  the  case  stands  on  a 
footing  of  absolute,  novelty,  that  the  claims  are  not  met, 

-  either  in  terras  or  in.:,  substance,  and  that  the  references 'of 
record  are  as  foreign  to.  the  actual  invention  whioh  appli¬ 
cant  has  made  as  if  they  had  boen  taken  out  of  another  art. 
We  believe,  therefore,  that  the  case  should  be  allowed  and 
that  the  decision  of  the  Examiner  should  be  reversed. 

SffcCUAstl.  *T ~ 

Of  Counsel. 

Hew  York,  May  14,  1901. 


Room  No.-ldjw 


'  1.ui|cn( 

3  of  mine,  an 


department  of  the  interior. 

United  States  Patent  Office, 


Washington,  e 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

Care  Dyer,  Edmonds  &  Dyer, 
Edison  Laboratory, 
Orange,  IT.  J. 


Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application. 

1-To.  49,453,  filed  Mar.  1,  1901, -"Reversible  Galvanic  Battery". 


Commissioner  of  Pa 


The  letter  filed  May  7th,  1901,  and  argument  filed  May  9th, 
1901,  have  been  entered  and  considered. 

'  Claims  1,  2,  4,  5,  7,  8,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14,  15,  19,  20, 

21,  22,  27,  28,  29,  30,  31,  32,  33  are  finally  rejected  upon 
the  references  of  record  for  the  reasons  set  forth  in  last  of¬ 
fice  letter. 

In  response  to  applicant's  request,  the  requirement  of 
division  is  postponed  until  after  the  decision  upon  appeal. 

The  Examiner's  statement  to  the  appeal  which  was  filed  May  9th, 
1901,  will  be  sent  forward  shortly. 


OHITEB  BTATEB  PATENT  OFEIOE. 


In  re  Application  of  Thoms  A.  Edison, 
Piled  March  1,  1901,  Ser.  Ho.  49,453, 
"Reversible  Oalvanio  Battery". 


:  Before  the 

:  Examiners-in-Chief 

: 

!  On  Appeal . 


i 

■ . +  Biv.  3,  Kay  IP,  1901 

Examiner’s  Statement. 


Appeal  is  taken  from  the  rejection  of  the  following  claims 

1.  Ah  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising;  a  conducting;  support  and  a  hydrated  oxide- 
of  a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  carried  by  said 
support,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

9.,  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support,  a  hydrated  oxide  of 
a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  carried  by  said  sup¬ 
port,  and  an  inert  conducting-  material  intimately  mixed  with 
said  oxide,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

4.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support  and  an  oxide  of  nickel 
carried  thereby  having  more  oxygen  than  Hi2<>3,  substantially  as 
set  forth. 

5.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanfte 
battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support,  an  oxide  of  nickel 
carried  thereby  having  more  oxygen  than  Hi2  <h ,  and  an  inert 
conducting  material  intimately  mixed  with,  said  oxide,  substan¬ 
tially  as  set  forth. 

7.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support  and  a  hydrated  oxide 
of  nickel  carried  thereby,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

8.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support,  a,  hydrated  oxide  of 
nickel  carried  thereby,  and  an  inert  conducting  material  inti  - 
mately  mixed  with  said  hydrated  oxide,  substantially  as  set 
forth. 

10.  An  active  oxidixable  element  for  an  alkaline  revers¬ 
ible  galvanic  battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support  and 
electrolytioaiiy  active,  finely  divided  iron  carried  thereby, 
and  cspable  of  being  oxidised  on  d isohar^ing,  substantially  as 
set  forth. 

Ill  An  active  deoxidisable  element  for  an  alkaline  re¬ 
versible  galvanic  battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support  and 
finely  divided  ferrous  oxide  carried  thereby,  and  capable  of 
being  deoxidised  on  charging,  substantially  as  set  forth!; 

12.  An  active  oxidixable  element  for  an  alkaline  revers¬ 
ible  galvanic  battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support  and\  on 
oxide  of  iron  carried  thereby  electrolytioaiiy  reducible,  to 
the  metallic  state uppmchanging,  substantially  as  set  forth! 


13.  In  ft  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  elec¬ 
trolyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  Iron  when 
chained,  and  another  conducting  s upport  carrying  an  oxide  of 

a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  and  capable  of  fur¬ 
nishing  oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  discharge, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

14.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  elec¬ 
trolyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  oxide  of 
iron  whan  discharged  and  another  conducting  support  carrying  an 
oxide  of  a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  and  capable 
of  storing  oxygen  on  charging,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

15.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  electro¬ 
lyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
ohargod,  another  conducting  support'  carrying  an  oxide  of  a  spe¬ 
cific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  and  capable  of  furnishing 
oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  discharge,  and  on  inert 
conducting  material  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide,  substan¬ 
tially  as  set  forth, 

19.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  elec¬ 
trolyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
charged,  and  another  conducting  support  carrying  oxide  of  nickel 
capable  of  furnishing  oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on 
discharge,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

20.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  elec¬ 
trolyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  oxide  of 
iron  when  discharged,  and  another  conducting  support,  carrying 
an  oxide  of  niokel,  substant. iully  as  set  forth. 

21.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  elec¬ 
trolyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
charged,  and  another  conducting  support  carrying  oxide  of  nickel 
having  when  charged  electrolyt ically  more  oxygen  than  IU2O3, 
substantially  as  set  forth  , 

22.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  elec¬ 
trolyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
charged,  and  another  conducting  support  carrying  a  hydrated 
oxide  of  nickel,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

27.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  perforated  conducting  receptaole  having 
elastic  walls  and  an  aotivo  material  therein  engaged,  by  said 
walls  with  an  elastio  pressure,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

28.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvan¬ 
ic  buttery*  comprising  a  perforated  conducting  receptacle  having 
elastic  walls  and  an  oxide  of  a  specific  magnetic  metal  other 
than  iron  in  said  receptacle,  said  oxide  being  capable  of  fur¬ 
nishing  oxygen  electrolyt ically  upon  discharge,  substantially 

as  set  forth, 

29.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 

battery,  comprising  a  perforated  conducting  receptacle  having 
elastic  walls  and  an  oxide  of  nickel  carried  thereby  and  having 
when  charged  electrolyt  ically  more  oxygen  than  Hi/'so  substan¬ 
tially  as  set  forth,  '2-  3 

30.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  gal¬ 
vanic  battery,  comprising  a  perforated  conducting  receptacle 
having  elastic  walls  and  u  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel  carried 


(3) 


by  cald  receptacle  and  encaged  by  said  walla  with  an  elaBtlo 
pres  mire,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


31.  A  reversible  galvanic  battery,  a  suitable  electrolyte, 
an  active  material  therein  whioh  In  charging  or  discharging 

is  alternately  increased  or  decreased  in  bulk,  a  perforated 
conducting  receptacle  holding  the  mterial  and  having  elastio 
walls  whioh  at  all  times  engage  the  material  with  an  elastic 
pressure,  and  smother  conducting  support  carrying  a  different 
active  mterial,  substantially  as  sot  forth. 

32.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  elec¬ 
trolyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
charged,  another  conducting  support  comprising  a  receptacle 
having  elastic  walls,  and  an  oxide  of  a  specific  magentio  motal 
other  than  iron  carried  within  said  receptacle  and  engaged  by 
the  walls  thereof  with  an  elastic  pressure,  said  oxide  being 
capable  of  furnish inf/oxygen  for  tho  oxidation  of  the  iron  on 
discharge,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

33.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery, an  alkaline  elec¬ 
trolyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  oxi  ;e  of 
iron  when  discharged,  another  conducting  support  comprising  a 
receptacle  having  elastio  walls,  and  an  oxide  of  a  specific  mag¬ 
netic  metal  other  than  iron  carried  within  said  receptacle  and 
engaged  by  the  walls  with  an  elastic  pressure  and  capable  of 
storing  oxygen  on  chatting,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

The  references  cited  are: 

U.  3.  274,110,  Mar.  20,  1883,  Be  I.alandeY^/ 

U.  s,  610,885,  Feb.  21,  1889,  Hamilton! 

British  1862,  Feb.  5,  1087,  Abel; 

British  15,370,  July  26,  1899,  Kiohalowski; 

Oeman  107,727,  Mov.  29,  1899,  Poliak. 

Claim  1,  2,  4,  5,  7,  8  were  rejected  upon  Abel.  Abel 
discloses  the  use  of  a  conducting  support,  showing  applied  there¬ 
to  .hydrates  of  the  oxides  of  nickel  or  cobalt  whioh  ore  mag¬ 
netic  metals.  The  use  of  inert  conducting  material  mixed  with 
the  oxides  is  also  disclosed  lines  4,  5,  6,  page  2.  As  to 
claims  4  and  5,  it  is  stated  that  the  hydrates  of  the  Oxide b 
employed  have  the  property  of  passing  to  a  higher  stage  of  ox¬ 
idation  by  combining  with  oxygen  (lines  21,  22,  page  1). 

Claims  10,  11,  and  12  were  rejected  upon  Pelalande  and 
Poliak .  In  lines  36,  37  of  page  1,  BeLalande  states  that  "Iron 
reduced,  or,  as  well,  copper  obtained  by  precipitation  or  electro¬ 
chemical  reduction"  my  be  employed  as  the  actlvo  electrode  or 
anode  of  the  cell.  It  has  been  asserted  that  the  Bole  purpose 
of  the  noduoed  iron  is  to  absorb  hydrogen  but  it  is  thought  that 
this  is  true  only  of  the  plat inum  or  palladium  mentioned  in 


(3) 


line  85,  an  these  two  metuln  are  commonly  employed  for  this  pur¬ 
pose  and  are  not  oxidizable,  while  electrolytioally  reduced 
iron  is  readily  oxidizable  and  '.will  be--  alternately  reduced 
and  oxidized  during  charging  and  discharging  of  the  call- 
in  one  condition  it  therefore  meets  the  terms  of  claim  10  find 
in  the  other  the  terras  of  oluims  11,  12.  Poliak  describes  the 
use  of  negative  electrodes  of  oxidized  iron  find  positives  of  iron* 
made  from  a  mass  of  pulverized  iron  or  iron  in  an  oxidized  fora 
pressed  into  shape  and  formed  electrolytioally  in  a  sodium  hy¬ 
drate  solution  into  negative  and  positive  plates.  These  elec¬ 
trodes  may  be  used  in  an  alkaline  electrolyte  as  disclosed  in 
the  last  paragraph  of  the  <'  escriptiop,  find  are  said  to  be  al¬ 
ternately  oxidized  and  reduced  during  use  (lines  V,  0,  9) . 

The  reduced  iron  electrode  of  Poliak  is  considered  to  anticipate 
claim  10  and  the  oxidized  one  claims  11  and  IS,  if  capable  of 
alternate  oxidation  and  reduction. 

Claims  18,  14,  15,  19,  SO,  SI, 32  and  33  are  considered  to 
bo  met  by  Abel  find  Michalowski,  taken  with  PeTialunde  and  Poliak 
since  if  fcach  of  the  individual  electrodes  1b  anticipated  for 
the  reasons  above  set  forth,  then  a  battery  composed  of  these 
electrodes  v/hich  produces  no  result  other  than  those  due  to  the 
added  effects  of  the  two  eleotrodes  is  fairly  anticipated  by  the 
patents  cited  agutast  the  individual  electrodes,  taken  together. 
In  the  battery  claimed  neither  element  modifies  the  action  of 
the  other  tmd  either  one  of  them  may  be  replaced  by  another 
electrode  of  the  same  general  nature  without  modifying  the  ac¬ 
tion  of  the  other  electrode.  At  the  bottom  of  page  2  of  the 
specification  it  is  stated  that  "the  oxygen-furnishing  element 
may  be  employed  in  connection  with  other  oxidizable  elements, 
while  the  new  oxidizable  element  may  be  employed  in  connection 
with  other  oxygen-furnishing  elements".  Those  claims  are  ac¬ 
cordingly  not  thought  to  cover  such  a  combination  of  elements 


(4) 


as  will  preclude  the  olting  of  Joint  references.  These  claim 
are  not  limited  to  the  use  of  a  hydrated  oxide  and  Michalowskd , 
who  discloses  only  non-hydmted  oxides,  anticipates  the  oxide 
element 'of  the  claimB  ns  well  <i»  Abel,  who  discloses  the  use 
of  hydrated  oxides.  The  receptacle  havingelast ic  walls  re¬ 
ferred  to  in,  claims  32,  S3,  is  disclosed  by  BeRulande .  Claim 
22,  which  in  limited  to  the  use  of  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel,  is 
rejected  for  the  same  reasons  as  the  claims  just  discussed  with 
the  exception  that  the  Hichalowski  paten t  is  not  cited,  aga inst 
it. 

Claims  27  and  31  are  rejected  upon  Be* aland e  and  Hamilton. 
Bach  of  these  patents  discloses  the  use  of  a  mot all ic  receptacle 
for  containing  the  depolarizer.  That  of  BoBulande  may  be  of 
iron,  copper  brass  wire  gauze  (lines  62,  53,  pace  1)  and 
that  of  Hamilton  of  copper  (lines  48,  52,  60,  63,  pace  2).  All 
of  these  materials  would  form  an  elastic  receptacle  and  the  de¬ 
polarizer  contained  therein  would  therefore  be  engagod  with  an 
elastic  pressure  during  changes  in  volume  occurring  during  the 
operation'  of ‘the  battery. 

Claims  28  and  29  are  rejected  upon  BeBalande  and  Hamilton 
taken  in  connection  with  Abel  and  Hichulowski  on  the  ground 
that  no7 invention  is  |involved  in  employing  the  receptacle  of 
Delitiiande  pr  Jhwnilioni  to  hold  a  nickel  oxide  depolarizer  when 
it!'  is  olj  io  retain  a  copper  oxide  depolarizer  in  the  same  way. 
rclaio  30  is  rejected  upon  BeBaliinrto  and  Ibunilton  tak-n  with  Abel 
for  the  some  reasons. 

/  It  is  thought  that  the  rejection  of  the  claims  should  be 


affirmed. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

(:  y 

Rx*r  Biv.  3, 

(5) 

Wo. 23,500.  U.  s.  Patent  Office,^tOUZ^tL  ,  1901. 

Before  the  Examiners- in-Chief ,  on  Appeal'.  JIJW 

Application  of  Thomas  A.  Edison  for  a  patent 
provument  in  a. Reversible 'Galvanic  Battery,  filed  March  i,  1901. 


Sopifil.  Ho.  49,453. 

Messrs.  Pyor,  Edmonds  £;  Byer  for  appoll'aht. ’  "|n 


The  claims  appeal od  are: 

"!•  An  active  element  for  tin  alkaline  reversible'  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support  and  a  hydrated  oxide  of  a 
specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  carried  by  said  support, 
substantially  as  set.  forth. 

"2.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support,  a  hydrated  Oxide  of  a 
specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  carried  by  said  support, 
and  an  inert  conducting  material  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide, 
substantially  us  set  forth.-  .  . 


"A.  An  active  element  of  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support  and  an  oxide  of  nickel 
carried  thereby  having  moro  oxygon  than  KioOx,  substantially  as  sot 
forth.  ' 

"5.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
buttery,  comprising  a  conducting  support,  an  oxide  of  nickel  car¬ 
ried  thereby  having  more  oxygon  than  HigOa,  and  an  inert  conducting 
material  intimately  mixed  vii  th  said  oxide,  substantially  as  sot 
forth. 


"7.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support'  and  .-a  hydrated- oxide  of 
nickel  curried  thereby,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

"0.  An  active  element  for.  an  alkaline  roversibio.galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support,  a  hydrated,  oxide "of  nick¬ 
el  carried  thereby,  and  an  inert  conducting  material, intimatoly  , 
mixed  with  said  hydrated  oxide,  substantially W  net  'forth.' 


"10.  An  iictive  oxidizablo  clement  for  on  alkalino  reversi- 
c...  B at t. tips,  comp.rls i ng  a  conducting  support,  and  electro-  ,... 
ly  tically  active,  'finoiy  '-divfde’BrTron 'carried  thoroby  aijd*  cap  able'' 
of  being  oxidized  on  discharging,  substantially  as  sot  forth. 


"11.  An  active  deoxidizable  element  for  an  alkaline  rovoru- 
iblo  galvanic  battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support'  and'  firioly 
divided  ferrous  oxide;  can-led.  thereby, -and  capable  of  boihg  dooxi- 
dized  on  charging,  substantially-  as • set  forth. 


"12.  An  active  oxidizablo  element  for  an  aikalinb  i 


bis  galvanic  battery,  comprising  a  conducting  support  and  an  oxido 
of  iron  carried  thereby  elo  otrolytically  reducible  to  the  metallic 
state  upon  charging,  substantially  an  set  forth. 

A  "> 

."$/■  "13.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  batt.ory,  an  alkaline  oleotrd- 

}/'  lyto,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when  charg¬ 
ed,  and  another  conducting  support  carrying  an  oxide  of  a  specific 
ra  (7i otic  metal  other  than  iron  and  ccpablo  of  furnishing  oxygen  for 
the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  discharge,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

"14.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  electro¬ 
lyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  oxide  of  iron 
when  discharged  and  another  conducting  support  carrying  an  oxide  of 
a  specific  magnetic  metal  othor  than  iron  and  capable  of  storing 
oxygon  on  charging,  substantially  as  sot  forth. 

"16.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  electro¬ 
lyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  iron  wh on  charg¬ 
ed,  another  conducting  support  carrying  an  oxide  of  a  specific  mag¬ 
netic  metal  other  than  iron  and  capable  Of  furnishing  oxygen  for 
the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  discharge,  an  an  inert  conducting  ma¬ 
terial  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide,  substantially  as  sat  forth 

"19.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  baitery,  on  alkaline  electro¬ 
lyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when  charg¬ 
ed,  and  another  conducting  support  carrying  oxido  of  nickol  capable 
of  furnishing  oxygon  for  th c  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  discharge, 
substantially  as  sot  forth. 

"HO.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  electro¬ 
lyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  oxide  of  iron 
when  discharged,  and  another  conducting  support  carrying  an  oxide 
of  nickel,  substantially  as  sat  forth. 

"21.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  eluctro- 
lytu,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when  charg¬ 
ed,  and  another  conducting  support  carrying  oxide  of  nickel  having 
when  chargod  ole  otrolytically  more  oxygon  than  JTi^Og,  substantially 
as  set  forth. 

"22.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  ar.  alkaline  oloctro- 
lyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when  ohat'g- 
ad,  and  another  conducting  support  carrying  a  hydrated  oxido  of 
nickol,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

"2S.  An  aptivo  element  for  an  alkallno  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  perforated  conducting  receptacle  having  elas¬ 
tic  walls  and  an  active  material  therein  ongagod  by  said  walls  with 
an  elastic  pressure,  substanti  ally  as  set  forth. 

"215.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  perforated  conducting  receptacle  having  elas¬ 
tic  walls  and  an  oxide  of  a  spoclfio  magnetic  metal  othor. thata  iron 
in  said  receptacle,  said  oxide  being  capable  of  furnishing  oxygen 
electrolytically  upon  discharge,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

"29,  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  perforated  conducting  receptacle  having  elas¬ 
tic  walls  and  ah  oxide  of  nickel  carried  thoroby  and  having  when 


3 


char®  d  elect.rolytin ally  more  oxyam  than  IIi203  substantially  as 
sot  forth. 

"30.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  a  perforated  conducting  recuptaclo  having  elas¬ 
tic  vc alls  and  a  hydratod  oxido  of  nickel  carried  by  said  receptacle 
and  engaged  by  said  walls  with  an  elastic  pressure,  substantially 
as  sot  forth. 

"31.  A  reversible  galvanic  battery,  a  suitable  electrolyte, • 
an  activo  material  therein  which  in  char  Ring  or  discharging  is  al¬ 
ternately  increased  or  decreased  in  bulk,  a  perforated  conducting 
’roceptaclo  holding  the  Material  and  having  elastic  walls  which  at 
all  times  engage  the  material  v;ith  an  elastic  pressure,  raid  another 
conducting  support  carrying  a  different  activo  material,  substan¬ 
tially  as  set  forth. 

"32.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  electro¬ 
lyte,  a  conducting  support,  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when  charg¬ 
ed,  another  conducting  support  comprising  a  receptacle  having  clas¬ 
tic  walls,  end  an  oxide  of  a  specific  magnetic,  metal  other  than 
iroji  carried  within  said  receptacle  ana  engaged  by  the  walls  there¬ 
of  with  an  elastic  pressure,  said  oxido  being  capablo  of  furnishing 
oxygon  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  discharge,  sub stantiallv  as 
sot  forth.  *  ' 

"33.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  electro¬ 
lyte,  a  conducting  support  carrying  finely  divided  oxido  of  iron 
whun  discharged,  another  conducting  support  comprising  a  receptacle 
having  elastic  walls,  mid  an  oxide  of  a  specific  magnetic  metal 
other  than  iron  carried  within  said  receptacle  and  engagod  by  tho 
walls  with  .an  elastic  pressure  and  capable  of  storing  oxygon  on 
charging,  substantially  as  set  forth." 

file  references  aro  patents  to'1' 

Do  Inland  a,  March  20,  1883,  TTo.274,110; 

Hamilton,  February  21,  1099,  Ho. 019,00b; 

British  Patent  a  Mob.  1,862  of  1807  to  Abel;, 

16,370  of  1899  to  Michalowski; 

Oorman  Patent  ITO.107,727  of  1899  to  Poliak. 

77o  agruo  with  tho  Ex minor 1  a  rejection  of  claims  1,  2,  4, 

6,  7  and  0  as  anticipated  by  the  British  patent  to  Abel. 

This  patent  clearly  describes  an  active  element  for  an 
alktlino  reversible  galvanic  batt cry_^bn®^fSTh^>avcon«iiad't'i'ijg .-supfasc’ 
port  (p. 4, lines  36-30)  and  a  hydratod  oxide  of  nickel  or  cobalt 
carried  by  said  support  (see  p.4,  linos  20-26) ,  and  an  inart  con¬ 
ducting  material  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxido  (p.4,  line  32). 

The  patent  further  states: 

"Tho  depolarizing  substance  consists  of  a  metallic  oxide 


or  peroxide  insoluble  in  caustic  alkali  solution,  or  hydratos  of 
such  oxides,  which  have  tho  property  of  passing  to  a  higher  stats 
of  oxidation  by  comb  ini  nr;  with  oxygon.  in  particular-  .  ,  ,  protox¬ 
ide,  (,f)  or  oxide  of  nickel,  protoxide  of  cobrdt,  etc." 

Tills  British  patent  to  Abel  is  a  communication  from  tv/o 
Germans ,  and  the  two  principal  prides  of  nickel  aru  in  German  re¬ 
ferred  to  as  JTiekol  monoxid  (nickcloxydul)  HiO,  and  nickel  oxyd, 
l!ia05  (soe  Peklinc'a  Hundv/Ortcnbuch  der  Chimio),  so  that  the  oxides 
of  nickel  referred  to  aro  AfiO,  and  ITiaOv,.  (This  is  verified  by  tho 
statements  in  German  Patent  No. 30,303  referred  to  in  tho  British 
patent.  No.  16,370  of  11399)  Hydratos  of  both  these  oxides  of  nickel 
are  well  known. 

It  is  also  known  that  there  are  higher  oxides  of  nickel 
than  Hia03,  Hehl'ing's  Piet,  above  reforrod  to  alludes  to  one  having 
the  formula  111407. 

Platt’s  Ttictiorary  of  Ckomiotry,  1(392,  Vol.lII,  p.50.2  also 
states  that  there  are  indications  of  an  oxide  containing  more  oxy¬ 
gon'  than  HijjCj^i 

Wi tli  this  knowledge  in  tho  art,  it  seems  to  us  that,  the 
applicant  is  not  entitled  to  any  of  this  group  of  claims.  With 
the  information  given  by  this  Abel  patent  at  his  disposal  and  what 
was  known  in  the  art,  no  invention  was  roquired  to  produce  tho  ele¬ 
ment  claimed. 

as 

By  following  the  directions  of  tho  patent.  to-.usoAan  elec¬ 
trode  a  hydrated  oxide  of  nickol  mixed  with  carbon  on  a  metal  sup¬ 
port,  tho  claimed  element,  is  necessarily  produced. 

This  group  of  claims  is  lacking  in  novolty. 

Hone  of  the  oases  cited  by  the  appellant,  authorize  a  con¬ 
trary  holding. 

In  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.,  555,  tho  Court  said 
.  .  "throe  oxport  v/itnessoB  oxomlnod  by  tho  complainants  toe- 


tify  that  neither  the  description  nor  the  drawings  of  the  sane,  as 
exhibited  in  that  magazine,  show  anything  wh i c.h  is  embodied  in  the 
complainant's  patent,  and  the  court  is  of  the  same  opinion". 

And  it  was  an  ouch  holding  that  the  language  cited  in  the  appel¬ 
lant's  brio?  is  based. 


In  the  case  before  us  wo  find  a  disclosure  of  that  which 
the  appellant,  in  claiming,  and  the  question  is  whether  because  oth¬ 
er  things  are  described  which  may  not  be  so  useful  for  the  purposo 
stated,  the  description  of  that  which  is  useful  ia  not  an  anticipa¬ 
tion. 

V/c  know  of  no  case  v/arranting  an  affirmative  answer  to 


the  question. 

In  $ho  ease  of  Welling  v.  Crane,  Id  Fed.  Rep.,  571  (cited 
by  appellant)  instead  of  supporting  tho  appellant's  position,  seems 
to  be  against  it.  In  that  case  the  Court  said:- 

"It  may  be  gathered  from  tho  foregoing  reference  to  pat¬ 
ents  antedating  and  anticipating  the  complainant's  patent,  that 
there  is  no  novelty  in  tho  alleged  invention  of  Willing,  unless  it 
is  novel  and  patentable  to  select  two  or  thgeo  from  the  largo  num¬ 
ber  of  ingredients,  any  of  which  Westondarr  (a  prior  patentee)  says 
nay  bo  used  in  tho  manufacture  of  artificial  ivory." 

Ho  in  the  ce.se  before  us,  tho  applicant's  claim  to  inven¬ 
tion  Teats  upon  the  selection  from  a  number  of  ingredients  of  cer¬ 
tain  specified  ones  and  using  thorn  in  tho  manner  specified  by  the 
patentee.  When  so  used,  they  noceasarily  produce  the  result  Claim- 


Claims  10,  11  and  12  are  reject od  upon  t.ho  patents  to  de 
I.alande  and  to  Poliak.  Tho  statement  in  tho  de  Lalandc  patent  re¬ 
lied  upon  by  tho  Ex  ceil  nor  is  as  follows: 

"The  active  electrode  of  the  pile  is  constituted  by  a  met¬ 
al  capable  of  be  ing- -attacked  by  tho  exo4 ting-, liquid  of  t.ho  pile 
when  the  circuit  is  closod  -  for  example,  zinc,  tin,  lead,  or  a  met' 
al  capable  of  fixing  tho  hydrogen,  as  palladium  platinum,  spongy 
platinum,  iron  reduced,  or,  aB  well,  coppor  obtained  by  precipita¬ 
tion  or  electro-chemical  reduction.  Those  piloa  are  reversible  - 
that  is  to, say,  capable  of  being  recharged  by  an  electric  current 
of  sufficient  electro-motive  force." 

As  to  this  disclosure,  tho  applicant  urges  that  the  moan- 


inn  its  that  the  "reduced  iron  is  employee!  solely  for  th u  purpose  of 
fixing  the  hydrogen,  which  latter  is  the  element  to  bo  oxidized  on 
discharge" ;  that  "at  best  the  specification  is  too  obscure  and 
doubtful  on  the  point  to  constitute  a  reference?  and  that  further, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  spongy  iron  reduced  by  hydro  non  from  dif¬ 
ferent  salts  is  not  oxidisablo  to  any  considerable  extent  by  the 
current. 

With  those  contentions  we  agree,  and  they  are  sufficient 
to  dispose  of  this  patent  as  an  anticipatory  reference. 

As  t.o  the  Poliak  patent,  the  applicant  asserts  that  it 
discloses  an  absolutely  .  inoperative  device,  for  t.iio  reason  that 
plates  of  '.ferric  oxide  prepared  in  the  manner  described  by  Poliak 
can  neither  ho  oxidized  nor  reduced  by  tko  electrolytic  action  and 
that  no  result  is  obtained,  except  that  oxygen  and  hydrogen  arc 
given  off  at  tho  respective  electrodes. 

The  applicant  prepares  his  finely  divided  iron  by  a  par¬ 
ticular  process  which  results  in  a  product  which  can  be  eloctrolyt- 
ioully  oxidized,  and  dooxidized.  Wo  do  not  find  in  either  of  tho 
patents  cited  a  sufficient  anticipation  of  Claims  10,  11  and  12. 

Claims  13,  14,  15,  19,  20,  21,  am'  22  claim  tho  battery 
as  a  whole  comprising  the  finoly  divided  iron  or  iron  oxide  as  one 
electrode,  an  alkaline  electrolyte,  and  as  tho  othor  oloctrode  tho 
more  or  loss  oxidized  nickel  oxide. 

In  view  of  the  statements  as  to  the  great  improvements  in 
tho  art  which  results  from  the  use  of  this  navi  iron  electrode  with 
the  old  electrolyte  and  old  dooxydizing  electrode,  we  regard  those 
claims  as  allowable. 

Claims  27,  2 B,  29,  30  and  31  are  anticipated  for  the  rea¬ 
sons  stated  by  the  Jixaninor,  ; 

Claims  32  and  33,  though  of  doubtful  patentability,  may 


be  allowed  for  the  reason  that  they  include  one  new  element,  to-wit 
the  iron  -  iron  oxirJe  eleotrode. 

The  decision  of  the  Bxarcinor  is  affirmed  as  to  claims  1, 
2,  4,  £>,  7,  B,  37,  20,  39,  30  and  81  and  reversed  us  to  claims  10, 
11,  12,  13,  14,  lb,  19,  20,  21,  22,  32  and  33. 


5b:  cm  i  n  or  s-  i  n  -C  h  i  o  f . 


Case  Ho.  1056  Abandoned 

Piled  Mar  oil  1st,  1901. 

IMPROVEMENTS  IN  REVERSIBLE  GALVANIC  BATTERIES. 

Claims . 

1.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  an  electrode  and  a  hydrated 
oxide  of  a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  carried 
by  said  electrode,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

2.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  an  electrode,  a  hydrated 
oxide  of  a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  carried 
by  said  electrode,  and  an  inert  conducting  material  inyi- 
mately  mixed  with  said  oxide,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

3.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  an  electrode,  a  hydrated 
oxide  of  a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  carried 
by  said  electrode,  and  flake  graphite  intimately  mixedwith 
said  oxide,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

4.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  an  electrode  and  an  oxide  of 
nickel  carried  thereby  having  when  charged  electrolytically 
more  oxygen  than  Ni203,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

5.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  an  electrode,  an  oxide  of  ni- 
kel  carried  thereby  having  when  charged  electrolytically 
more  oxygen  than  Ni203,  and  an  inert  oonduoting  material 
intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide,  substanially  as  set  forth 

6.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  an  electrode,  an  oxide  of  ni¬ 
ckel  carried  thereby  having  when  charged  electrolytically 
more  oxygen  than  Ni203,  and  flake  graphite  intimately  mix¬ 
ed  with  said  oxide,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

An  active  element  for  annalkaline  reversible  , 


forth, 


8.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  an  electrode,  a  hydrated  ox¬ 
ide  of  nickel  carried  thereby,  and  an  inert  conducting 
material  intimately  mixed  with  said  hydrated  oxide,  sub¬ 
stantially  as  set  forth. 

9.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  an  electrode,  a  hydrated  ox¬ 
ide  of  nickel  carried  thereby,  and  flake  graphite  intimate¬ 
ly  mixed  with  said  oxide^ substantially  as  set  forth. 

10.  An  active  oxidizable  element  for  an  alkaline 
reversible  galvanic  battery,  comprising  an  electrode  and 
electrolytically  active,  finely  divided  iron  carried  there¬ 
by,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

11.  An  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible  galvanic 
battery,  comprising  an  electrode  and  finely  divided  ferrous 
oxide  carried  thereby,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

12.  An  active  oxidizable  element  for  an  alkaline 
reversible  galvanic  battery,  comprising  an  electrode  and  an 
oxide  of  iron  carried  thereby  electrolytically  reducible 

to  the  metallic  state,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

13.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline  e- 
lectrolyte,  an  electrode  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
charged,  and  another  electrode  carrying  an  oxide  of  a 
specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  and  capable  of  fur¬ 
nishing  oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  discharge, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

14.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an  electrode  carrying  finely  divided  oxide  of 
iron  when  discharged,  and  another  electrode  carrying  an 

oxide  of/specific  magnetic .metal  , other  than  iron  capable 
on  charging 

of  storing  oxygen,  /substantially'  as  set  forth. 

15.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an  electrode  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 


3  - 


charged,  another  electrode  carrying  an  oxide  of  a  specific 
magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  and  capable  of  furnishing 
oxygen  for 'the  oxidation  of  the  iron  oh  discharge,  and  an 
inert  conducting  material'  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

16.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an  electrode  carrying  finely  divided  iron 
when,  charged ,  another  electrode  car ring  an  oxide  of  a 
specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  and  capable  of  fur¬ 
nishing  oxygen  for  the .  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  discharge, 
and  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide,  sub¬ 
stantially  as  set  forth. 

17.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,'  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an  electrode"!  -  carrying  finely  divided  iron 
when  charged,  an  inert  conducting  material  intimately 
mixed  with  said  finely  divided  iron,  another  electrode  car¬ 
rying  an  oxide  of  a  specific -magnetic  metal  other  than  iroi. 
capable  of  furnishing  oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron 
on  discharge,  and  an  inert  conducting  material  mixed  with 
said  oxide,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

18.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an'electrode  carrying  finely  divided  iron 
whe n  charged,  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said' 

f  inely  divided  iron,  another  electrode  carrying  an<  oxide 
of  a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  tjian  iron  capable  of 
furnishing  oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron  on  dis¬ 
charge  and  flake-  graphite  mixed  with  said  oxide,  substan^i 
tially  as  set  forth. 

19.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  and  electrode  carrying  finely  divided  iron 
when  charged,  and  another  electrode  carrying  oxide  of  nic¬ 
kel  capable  of  furnishing  oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the 
iron  on  discharge,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


20.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an  electrode  carrying  finely  divided  oxide 

of  iron  when  discharged,  and  another  electrode  carrying  an 
oxide  if  nickel,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

21.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  and  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an. electrode  carrying  finely  divide^  iron  when 
charged ,  and  another  electrode  carrying  oxide  of  nicked 
having  when  charged  electrolytically  more  oxygen  than 
Hi203,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

22.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrblyte ,  an  electrode  carrying  finely  divided  iron 
when  charged,  and  another  electrode  carrying  a  hydrated 
oxide  of  nickel,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

23.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  and  electrode  carrying  finely  divided  iron 
when  charged,  another  electrode  carrying  oxide  of  nickel 
capable  of  furnishing  oxygen  for  the  oxidation  of  the  iron 
on  discharge,  and  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said 
oxide,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

24.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an  electrode  carring  finely  divided  oxide  of 
iron  when  discharged,  another  electrode  carrying  an  oxide 
of  nickel,  and  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said 
oxide,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

25.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte, an  electrode  carrying  finely  divided:' icon  when 
charged,  another  electrode  carrying  oxide  of  nickel  having 
when  charged  electrolytically  more  oxygen  than  Ni203,  and 
flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide,  substan¬ 
tially  as  set  forth. 

26.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an  electrode  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
charged,  another  electrode  carrying  a  hydrated  oxide  of 
nickel,  and  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said  oxide 


substantially  as  set  forth. 

27.  An  actiVe  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  a  perforated  receptacle  hav¬ 
ing  elastic  walls  and  an  active  material  therein  engaged 
by  said  walls  with  an  elastic  pressure,  substantially  as 
set  forth. 

28.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  a  perforated  receptacle  having 
elastic  walls  and  an  oxide  of  a  specific  magnetic  metal 
other  than  iron  in  said  receptacle,  said  oxide  being  capable 
of  furnishing  oxygen  electrolytically  upon  discharge,  sub¬ 
stantially  as  set  forth. 

29.  An  active  element  for  an  alkaline  reversible 
galvanic  battery,  comprising  a  perforated  receptacle  hav¬ 
ing  elastic  walls  and  an  oxide  of  nickel  carried  thereby 
and  having  when  charged  electrolytically  more  oxygen  than 
Hi203,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

30.  An  active  element  for  an  Itlkaline  reversible  gal¬ 
vanic  battery,  comprising  a  perforated  receptacle  hav¬ 
ing  elastic  walls  arid  a  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel  carried  by 
said  receptacle  and  engaged  by  said  walls  with  an  elastic 
pressure,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

31.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  a  stable  elec¬ 
trolyte,  and  active  material  therein  which  in  cliarging  or 
discharging  is  alternately  increased  or  decreased  in  bulk, 
a  perforated  receptacle  holding  the  material  and  having 
elastic  walls  which  at  all  times  engage  the  material  with 
an  elastic  pressure,  and  another  electrode  carrying  a  dif¬ 
ferent  active  material,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

32.  In  a  reversible  galvanic  battery,  an  alkaline 
electrolyte,  an  electrode  carrying  finely  divided  iron  when 
charged,  another  electrode  having  elastic  walls,  and  an 
oxide  of  a  specific  magnetic  metal  other  than  iron  carried 


petition 


DYER,  EDMONDS  &  DYER. 

Patents  ant)  patent  Causes, 


Co  tbe  Commissioner  of  patents : 

your  petitioner,  '.THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  u  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park  in  the  County  of  Essex  and 
State  of  New  Jersey,  whose  post  offioe  address  is  Orange,  Essex 
County,  New  Jersey, 

PRAYS  THAT  LETTERS  PATENT  MAY  BE  GRANTED  TO  HIM  FOR  THE  BSPROVEKENT  IN 

ELECTRODES  EOR  GALVANIC  BATTERIES 


SET  FORTH  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION  ;  AND  HE  HEREBY  APPOINTS  DYER,  EDMONDS 
AND  DYER  (A  FIRM  COMPOSED  OF  RICHARD  N.  DYER,  SAMUEL  O.  EDMONDS  AND  FRANK  L. 
DYER),  OF  NO.  31  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  HIS  ATTORNEYS,  WITH  FULL  POWER  OF 
SUBSTITUTION  AND  REVOCATION,  TO  PROSECUTE  THIS  APPLICATION,  TO  MAKE  ALTERA¬ 
TIONS  AND  AMENDMENTS  THEREIN,  TO  RECEIVE  THE  PATENT,  AND  TO  TRANSACT  ALL 
BUSINESS  IN  THE  PATENT  OFFICE 


BPBOIPIOATION. 


TO  WHOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN: 

Bo  it  known  that  I,  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  citizen  of 

the  United  States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Bark  in  the  County 

of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey,  have  invented  a  certain 

new  and  useful  IMPROVEMENT  IN  ELECTRODES  EOR  GALVANIC  BAT- 
/or? 

TERIES  (oaso  No.  1057),  of  whioh  the  following  is  a  de¬ 
scription: 

My  invention  relates  to  improvements  in  electrodes 
for  galvanic  batteries,  and  particularly  reversible  or  so- 
callad  storage  batteries;  and  the  improvements  are  es¬ 
pecially  designed  for  use  with  batteries  wherein  the  active 
material  is  subject  to  changes  in  bulk,  either  due  to  ab¬ 
sorption  of  the  electrolyte  or  to  other  causes  during  Charg¬ 
ing  or  discharging. 

In  an  application  for  Letters  Patent  filed 
1901,  Serial  No.  W  ^3i>  j  have  described  an  improved  re¬ 
versible  galvanic  battery  employing  oxide  of  niokel  or  of 
oobalt  as  the  aotivo  material,  contained  in  perforated 
highly-elastio  metallio  pockets  undor  pressure,  whereby  an 
expansion  or  Contraction  in  bulk  of  the  active  material  re¬ 
sults  in  a  consequent  bulging  or  retraction  of  the  pooket 
walls  to  always  maintain  the  desired  intimate  contact  be¬ 
tween  the  active  material  and  suoh  walls.  ( I  find  that  by 
corrugating  the  walls  of  the  pockets  or  receptacles,  they 
may  be  made  sufficiently  rigid  to  withstand  the  pressure 
due  to  any  tendency  of  the  aotive  material  to  expand,  while 
at  the  same  time  the  thioknessof  metal  used  in  their  con¬ 
struction  may  bo  aotually  reduced.  By  means  of  this  im- 
provanent  I  do  away  with  the  necessity  of  making  the  pockets 
•  1 


of  highly-elaotio  material,  and  also  overcome  the  possibi¬ 
lity  of  poor  oontaot  between  the  walla  and  the  active  mate¬ 
rial.  My  ohjeot  then  la  to  provide  an  improved  oonstrue- 
tion  of  pocket  or  receptacle  for  the  active  material,  where¬ 
in  any  tendency  of  the  walla  thereof  to  buckle  outwardly 
will  be  overcome,  while  at  the  same  time  the  thickness  of 
jsuoh  walla  need  not  be  increased. 

In  order  that  the  invention  may  be  better  under¬ 
stood,  attention  ia  directed  to  the  accompanying  drawing 
forming  a  part  of  this  specification,  and  in  whloh  figure  1 
is  a  plan  of  a  portion  of  a  grid  showing  pooket  8  or  re- 
oeptaoles  in  place}  figure  3  a  seotion  on  the  line  3—2  of 
figure  lj  and  figure  3  a  seotion  on  the  line  3—3  of  fig¬ 
ure  3. 

In  all  of  the  above  views  like  parts  are  represented 
by  corresponding  numerals. 

The  grid  1  is  made  of  a  suitable  sheet  metal  not 
affected  by  the  eleotrolyte,  as  for  example  sheet  nickel 
or  nickel-plated  sheet  steel  or  iron  in  the  case  of  a  bat¬ 
tery  using  ah  alkaline  solution.  The  grid  is  formed  with 
openings  2  therein,  preferably  rootangular  in  shape,  and 
fitted  and  secured  in  eaoh  opening  is  a  reoeptaale  or  pookot 
3  having  perforated. walls.  Eaoh  pocket  or  reoeptacle  3  is 
made  of  two  aeotions  4  and  8  fitted  together.  ^  After  tho 
aotive  material  6  is  introduced  in  the  smallei^seotion  4, 

■  Jjujs  y.  •  j.  *  ' 

tho^ seotion  B  is  fitted  like  a  box  cover  over  it,  and  the 
pooket  as  a  whole im  introduced  into  one  of  the  openings  2 
and  seoured  permanently  In  position ’'by  the  applioat  ion  of 
pressure  near  Its  edges,  whioh, are  oriiqped  or  burred  ever 
around  the  edge  of  the  opening,  as  shown. ^  Tho 
novelty  of  the  present  ingirovement  is  the  provision  Of  eof- 
rua^tions  or  flutes  in  the  pooket  walls  as  Illustrated,  and 


1 - 


r 


whloh  may  be  formed  in  any  suitable  way.  The Be  corruga¬ 

tions  preferably  extend  crosswise  of  the  pooketa  or  horison- 
tally  from  aide  to  side  as  I  show,  but  obviously  they  may 
run  longitudinally  or  end  to  end,  or  obliquely  from  one 
side  to  the  other.  |  I  find  by  aotual  praotioe  that  with 
:  pockets  oorrugated  or  fluted  as  explained,  the  walls  are  so 
stiff  that  there  is  no  appreciable  or  at  least  objectionable 
j  bulging,  even  when  the  pockets  oontain  active  material  which 
I  tends  to  increase  in  bulk  during  charging,  like  oxide  of 
nickel;  and  that  this  advantageous  result  is  scoured  when 
/  the  metal  of  the  pookots  is  even  thinner  than  may  be  effeo- 
i  til rely  used  without  the  corrugations  but  with  a  highly* 
elastic  metal.  . . . . . . . . . 


Having  now  described  my  invention,  what  I, claim 
as  new  and  desire  to  secure  by  letters  Patent  is  as  fol¬ 
lows.* 

1.  An  electrode  for  a  galvamio  battery,  oompris- 
ing  a  support,  a  pocket  or  receptacle  carried  thereby  and 
having  oorrugated  walls,  and  an  aotlve  material  In  Said 
poOket  or  receptacle,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

S.  An  electrode  for  a  galvanic  battery  comprising 
a  support,  a  pooket  or  reooptaole  carried  thereby  and  hav¬ 
ing  horizontally  oorrugated  walls,  and  an  aotlve  material 
in  said  pocket  or  receptacle,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

3.  An  electrode  for  a  galvanlo  battery  comprising 
a  grid  having  an  opening  therein,  a  pooket  or  reoeptaole 
seoured  in  said  opening  and  having  corrugated  walls,  and  an 
active  material  in  said  pocket  or  reooptaole,  substantially 
oa  set  forth. 

4.  An  electrode  for  a  galvanio  battery  comprising 
a  grid  having  an  opening  therein,  a  pocket  or  receptacle 

8 

. . .  '  ' 


I  secured  in  said  opening  and  having  horlaontally  corrugated 
walls,  and  an  active  material  in  said  pocket  or  receptacle, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

8*  An  electrode  for  a  galvanic  battery  comprising 
a  grid  having  a  plurality  of  openings  therein,  a  pookot  or 
receptacle  secured  in  each  opening  and  having  oorrugated 
walls,  and  an  aotive  material  in  said  pockets  or  reoeptaolea 
substantially  as  set  forth!. 

6.  An  electrode  for  a  galvanio  battery  comprising 
a  support,  a  sectional  pooket  or  receptacle  carried  thereby 
and  having  oorrugated  walls,  and  an  aotive  material  in  said 
pooket  or  reoeptaole,  substantially  as  set  forth, 

7.  An  electrode  for  a  galvanio  battery  Comprising 
a  support,  a  pocket  or  receptacle  having  corrugated  walls 
and  secured  at  its  edges  to  said  support,  and  an  aotive  ma¬ 
terial  in. said  pouket  or  reoeptaole,  substantially  as  set 
forth. 


t 


- - 


©atb* 

State  ol 
(Eount? 

THOMAS  A.  BDISOH  _  THE  above-named 

PETITIONER,  BEING  DULY  SWORN,  DEPOSES  AND  SAYS  THAT  HE  IS  A  OitiSBlI 

OF  THE  United  States,  and  a  resident  of  Llewellyn  Park  in  the 
County  of  Essex  and  Btato  of  Hew  Jersey; 

THAT  HE  VERILY  BELIEVES  HIMSELF  TO  BE  THE  ORIGINAL,  FIRST  AND  SOLE  INVENTOR 

op  THE  IMPROVEMENT  IN  3XECTR0K53  50R  GALVANIC  BATTERIES 


3  CLAIMED  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION;  THAT  HE  DOES  NOT 
KNOW  AND  DOES  NOT  BELIEVE  THAT  THE  SAME  WAS  EVER  KNOWN  OR  USED  BEFORE 
HIS  INVENTION  OR  DISCOVERY  THEREOF;  OR  PATENTED  OR  DESCRIBED  IN  ANY 
PRINTED  PUBLICATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA  OR  ANY  FOREIGN  COUNTRY 
BEFORE  HIS  INVENTION  OR  DISCOVERY  THEREOF,  OR  MORE  THAN  TWO  YEARS  PRIOR 
TO  THIS  APPLICATION;  OR  IN  PUBLIC  USE  OR  ON  SALE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  FOR 
MORE  THAN  TWO  YEAHS  PRIOR  TO  THIS  APPLICATION,  AND  THAT  NO  APPLICATION 
FOR  FOREIGN  PATENT  HAS  BEEN  FILED  I 
ASSIGNS  IN  ANY  FOREIGN  COUNTRY. 


A  OR  HIS  LEGAL  REPRESENTATIVES  OR 


SWORN  TO  AND  SUBSCRIBED  BEFORE  I 


nr. 


E  THIS  ^^"Cay" of  wo  / 

y&Ls/'tfe.  _ _ 


NOTARY  PUBLIC. 


3-101. 


I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  petition,  specification,  oath,  and  ~ 


drawing  of  yonny,  alleged  Improvement  in . . 

_ _ _ .1 _ 

with  Fifteen  Dollars  as  the  first  fee  payable  thereon.  Jj 

The  papers  are  duly  filed,  and  your  application  for  a  patent  will  be  taken  I 
up  for  examination  in  its  order _ _  2 


United  States  Patent  Office, 


Is  Thomas  A.  Edison, 

3 1 

1  %  Care  Dyer,  Edmonds  &  Dye 

|  §  31  ITassau  St . , 


t,  %,  ms 


The  serial  number  of  the  application  referred  to,  line 
15,  page  1,  should  be  specified. 

The  statement  in  line  11,  paGe  2  that  figure  1  is  a  plan 
of  a  grid  shov/inc  two  pockets,  is  incorrect,  as  only  one  pocket 
is  shown. 

Claim  6  is  indistinct  in  the  words  "sectional  pocketi 
the  word  "sectional"  is  not  sufficiently  definite  to  distinguish 
applicant's  structure  from  that  disclosed  by  the  references. 

Claims  1,  2,  6  are  each  rejected  upon: 

U...  5.  509.270,  ITov  ■  21,  1893,  Usher,  (Bat  t . ,  Sec  . ) : 

Rooney, 

The  vessel  in  which  the  pocKe’ts  of  Usher  are  retained  may  be 
termed  a  support. 


Ex'r  Div.  3, 


oil  thnt  the  printed  copies  enumerated  below  are  exhausted.  As  the  appro- 
jprint  all  exhausted  copies,  only  such  bb  aro  indispensable  will  bo  reproduced, 
other  you  will  await  their  reproduction,  or  whether  their  cost,  .JO . 


0  chi,  ■  - 


Q  -  ^  9  -&2JI 


\s 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON  ) 

) 

ELECTRODES  FOR  GALVANIC  BATTER  IBS.  ) 

)  ROOM  3.49. 

PILED  MARCH  86th,  1901.  ) 

) 

SERIAL  NO.  52,986.  ) 


HON.  COJfctlSSIONBR  OP  PATENTS. 

S  I  R: 

I  hereby  abandon  the  above  entitled  application 
(without  waiving  any  rights  in  or  to  the  invention  described 
therein)  in  favor  of  an  applibation  (Edison  No.  1069)  execu¬ 
ted  on  even  date  herewith  and  having  the  s;ane  title. 

Respectfully, 


Signed  May  10,  1901. 


In  presence  of: 


Case  No.  15-1057, 


Abandoned. 


Improvements  in  Elect  rods s  for  Galvanic 
Batteri es . 

C  la  i  m  s. 

1.  An  electrode  for  a  galvanic  battery,  comprising 

a  support,  a  pocket  or  receptacle  carried  thereby  and  hav¬ 
ing  corrugated  vails,  and  an  active  material  in  said  pocket 
or  receptacle,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

2.  An  electrode  for  a  galvanic  battery  comprising 

a  support,  a  pocket  or  rec.eptaele  carried  thereby  and  hav¬ 
ing  horizontally  corrugated  walls,  and  an  active  material 
in  said  pocket  or  recrtpta.de,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

3.  An  electrode  for  a  galvanic  battery  comprising 

a  grid  having  an  opening  therein,  a  pocket  or  receptacle 
secured  in  said  opening  and  having  corrugated  walls,  and  an 
active  material  in  said  pocket  or  receptacle,  substantially 
as  set  forth. 

4.  An  electrode  for  a  galvanic  battery  comprising 

a  grid  having  an  opening  therein,  a  pocket  or  receptacle, 
secured  in  said  opening  and  having  horizontally  corrugated 
walls,  and  an  active  naterial  in  said  pocket  or  receptacle, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

5.  An  electrode  for  a  galvanic  battery  comprising 

a  grid  having  a  plurality  of  openings  therein,  a  pocket  or 
receptacle  secured  in  each  opening  and  having  corrugated 
vfalls,  and  an  active  material  in  said  pockets  or  receptacle  3 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

6.  An  electrode  for  a  galvanic  battery  comprising 

a  support,  a  sectional  pocket  or  receptacle  carried  thereby 
and  having  corrugated  walls,  and  an  active  material  in 
said  pocket  or  receptacle,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


-1- 


7.  An  electrode  for  a  galvanic  battery  comprising 
a  support,  a  pocket  or  receptacle  having  corrugated  walls 
and  secured  at  its  edges  to  said  support,  and  an  active 
material  in  said  pocket  or  receptacle,  substantially  as 
set  forth. 


'*  ^  *tt^  lw,t^XEToL"  Oyj  ^Gg  '*^ 

kef.  /*-  *p=* "“x) 


V^rtc  ,w 

y  w~.  f— t  ~*r~:~  tfcu£ 

■■Vyduara-  u  «.<*—  *1  -  * 

oL*.—rr~ 

ot-«  *>  r~^_  ( a  2. 


^XXT  fc-C^-fr 

^  Vf?  <4 


«r~***-  1)  ^  .  Jk  -'je 

K“t~s££±r 


i.  <ue=t=rrf  0.  l^-  !-«• 

rl,  6,X-Jl  .pUd-^  '>»*''  ’">'. 

r  -7J — 75 /io 


.ciu^e  ^ 


*0 


\|  .  v  0  'Sto£ — -VC— 

A  >*  .0 .  •  o  ±-  '*x&acr^ 

°  .  .  (~T<^  E^^ 


tf  . 


A>''fcja 

fi  r^f7^ 
«^%^e t££g  <fJz- 


t  'L^vV.(l  03=^  "■  ,w'  ^ 

iU  ct  cL&  t*  *  *i  cwddU' 


-s 


•V'-<-AA-^A,j  CL Si-  |U 

VvX‘*WX 


>&-(£/  ^~‘N 

Uh<Mk. 

ftdljbL* 


Ls&  ^j2.<a„© 


AJL  _ _ 

„  f  :  ^4Cjl^ 
Z^£j,£t-S  »*-■-*■  <^ 

obfc,  la xHw_  I /(^-^a^a 


,  CDt(6  <*~® 


^  00 

6' 


4,  m^W<e*  - 

d(U,  :L, +lH-*-etLLr+i  < 


'HvSt  ^ 

1  ,^£3Z1^X' 

ts-w^gg:^-  -A 


y 


■  v 


U,  -3HM, 

Qv'e&v-  tai  eZ^^Lt 


r 

O" 


IVU  (*-+ 

ffl.  £&©*»- 


.,€.<1  e>  <$jy  1  ■£■■'&  * ^  <5wA 
k*_U  L~y<J  tfJU-tL--#  JUj 

^go  &£&  eU  M-A^odJ  ; 

■tff^JLe.  V i>4«mn/ ux  TXIT*  dZi.a-Q^'Zj  1C 

*  s7>  ...  '~isr™~u‘  o.  [ )/ 


ofo-w  $>V<  t 


I .  Ou^.X^'CaJ^^ 

«*(%  ^Z££ZZ 

-jjp  0  (sj..  aaT** 

,<3-oy 


:,OVV- 


LAW  OFFICES 


DYER.  EDMONDS  &  DYER. 

patents  mis  patent  Causes, 


Petition. 


TEo  the  Commissioner  of  patents : 

YOUR  PETITIONER  THOMAS  ALVA  EDISON,  A  CITIZEN  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 
RESIDING  AT  LLEWELLYN  PARK,  IN  ORANGE,  ESSEX  COUNTY,  STATE  OF  NEW  JERSEY,  AND 
WHOSE  POST-OFFICE  ADDRESS  IS  ORANGE,  NEW  JERSEY,  PRAYS  THAT  LETTERS  PATENT 

may  be  granted  to  him  for  the  IMPROVEMENT  IN  DEPOLARIZERS  POH  RE¬ 
VERSIBLE  GALVANIC  BATTERIES 


SET  FORTH  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION  J  AND  HE  HEREBY  APPOINTS  DYER,  EDMONDS 
AND  DYER  (A  FIRM  COMPOSED  OF  RICHARD  N.  DYER,  SAMUEL  O.  EDMONDS  AND  FRANK  L. 
DYER),  OF  31  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  HIS  ATTORNEYS,  WITH  FULL  POWER  OF 
SUBSTITUTION  AND  REVOCATION,  TO  PROSECUTE  THIS  APPLICATION,  TO  MAKE  ALTERA¬ 
TIONS  AND  AMENDMENTS  THEREIN,  TO  RECEIVE  THE  PATENT,  AND  TO  TRANSACT  ALL 
BUSINESS  IN  THE  PATENT  OFFICE  CONNECTED  THEREWITH :  AND  HE  REQUESTS  THAT  ALL 
COMMUNICATIONS  RESPECTING  THIS  APPLICATION  BE  .'ADDRESSED  TO  HIS  ATTORNEYS, 
AT  THE  EDISON  LABORATORY,  ORANGE,  NEW  JER8EY. 


I 


I  SPECIFICATION. 

TO  WHOM  IT  HAY  CONCERN: 

Be  it  known  that  I,  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  oitizen  of 
the  United  States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park,  in  the  County 
of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey,  have  invented  a  certain 
new  and  useful  IMPROVEMENT  IN  DEPOLARIZERS  FOR  REVERSIBLE 
GALVANIC  BATTERIES  (case  No.  1058),  of  which  the  following 
is  a  description: 

In  an  application  for  patent  filed  Maroh  1,  1901, 
Serial  No.  49,483,  I  describe  an  improved  reversible  gal- 
vanio  battery  utilizing  niokel  hydroxide  as  the  aotive  de¬ 
polarizing  material.  This  nickel  hydroxide  was  mixed  with 
flakelike  or  micaceous  graphite  and  paoked  in  metallic  re¬ 
ceptacles  having  perforated  walls.  When  subjected  to  a 
charging  current ,  the  niokel  hydroxide  is  raised  to  a  high¬ 
er  state  of  oxidation  so  as  to  operate  as  a  depolarizer,  the 
advantages  and  value  of  which  were  fully  explained  in  said 
application. 

The  green  hydroxide  of  niokel  made  by  the  usual 
methods  of  precipitating  a  soluble  niokel  salt  by  the  solu¬ 
ble  alkalies,  such  as  potassium  hydroxide  or  sodium  hydroxidi  ■ 
is  oo^loifdal in  form.  %t  is  very  bulky,  requires  hours  to 
Bottle  when  thrown  into  a  large  quantity  of  water,  is  very 
difficult  to  wash  and  make  oheaply,  dries  to  a  hard  glassy 
mass,  and  when  placed  in  the  pookets  of  the  electrodes  swells 
to  such  an  extent  that  the  pockets  must  be  made  very 
and  of  comparatively  thick  metal  to  withstand  the  pressure. 

If  the  hydrated  peroxide  is  produced  by  preoipitating  a 
niokel  salt  by  hypoahlorite  of  potassium  or  hypoohlorito  of 
sodium,  it  has  the  same  objectionable  colloidal  properties, 

1 


whlla  if  the  hydrated  peroxide  ia  formed  by  dry  chlorina¬ 
tion  it  is  always  imperfect,  difficult  to  purify,  and  swells 
©bjeotionably  in  the  pockets  of  the  electrodes. 

My  present  invention  relates  to  the  production  of 
nickel  hydroxide  suitable  for  use  as  a  depolarizer,  its  phy¬ 
sical  Btate  being  such  that  when  placed  In  the  pockets  of 
the  electrode  it  will  not  unduly  expand  when  subjected  to 


I  the  Joint  action  of  the  electrolyte  and  the  charging  cur¬ 
rent  to  weaken  or  disrupt  the  metal  forming  the  pockets  or 
to  affect  the  proper  eleotrloal  contact  with  the  metal  of 
the  pockets  during  the  charging  and  discharging  operations, 
and  v/hich  depolarizer  is  al3o  of  a  character  easily  manufac¬ 
tured  and  purified,  of  groat  sensitiveness  to  electrolytic 
oxidation,  and 'which  dries  to  a  powder,  all  of  whioh  are 
properties  enhancing  its  value  for  use  in  this  art. 

In  carrying  the  invention  into  effect,  I  proceed  as 
follows:  To  a  boiling  solution  of  nitrate  of  nickel-  is :  add- 
ed  a  suffiolent  quantity  of  magnesium  hydroxide  to  precipi¬ 
tate  the  whole  of  the  nickel  as  niokel  hydroxide  (HiO)j  tho 
whole  is  thrown  into  water;  it  settles  almost  immediately; 
by  decanting  the  water  and  adding  fresh  water  six  or  eight 
times  and  decanting  after  each  addition,  the  hydroxide  is 
obtained  veiy  free  of  impurities;  afterwards  the  excess  of 
water  is  filtered  off  and  the  hydroxide  is  then  dried.  Cal¬ 
cium  or  strontium  hydroxide  can  be  used  in  place  of  magne¬ 
sium  hydroxide,  but  the  latter  produces  superior  results. 

The  green  niokel  hydroxide  thus  produced  can  be  used  in  the 
pockets  of  the  eleotrode  without  any  further  manipulation* 
but  the  action  of  ,the  alkaline  solution  causes  it  to  swell 
materially,  and  this  imposes  an  objectionable  pressure  upon 
the  walls  of  the  pockets.  It  is  therefore  desirable  that 
this  tendency  to  swell  should  be  reduced  as  far  as  possible; 


I  have  found  that  if  the  green  hydroxide  is  oxidized  Btill 
further  to  the  hydrated  peroxide,  the  swelling  notion  is  so 
reduced  as  to  he  included  within  the  elastic  limits  of  the 
walls  of  the  pockets  of  the  electrode.  To  furthor  oxidize 
the  green  hydroxide  I  pass  dry  chlorine  gas  through  a  re¬ 
ceptacle  filled  with  the  dried  hydroxide;  tho  notion  of 
the  ohlorine  on  the  hydrate  oxidizes  the  latter  and  pro¬ 
duces  hydroohlorio  aoid,  which  combines  with  a  portion  of 
the  hydroxide  and  forms  ohloride  of  nickel,  whioh  is  washed 
out  by  percolation  and  used  again  to  give  fresh  hydrate; 
finally,  the  hydrated  peroxide  is  dried  and  is  ready  for 
use.  It  is  then  mixed  with  flake  graphite  in  the  propor¬ 
tions  of  six  parts  of  the  peroxide  to  four  parts  of  graphite 
the  mixture  is  then  slightly  moistened  with  water  or  a  solu¬ 
tion  of  potassio  hydroxide  and  spread  out  on  a  glass  plate, 
and  by  means  of  a  glass  or  porcelain  roller  pressed  into  a 
thin  sheet;  by  means  of  a  spatula,  the  sheet  is  detaohed 
from  the  glass  and  broken  up  and  rolled  again;  this  opera¬ 
tion  is  repeated  a  number  of  times,  until  the  finely  divided 
oxide  oovers  nearly  the  whole  surface  of  the  graphite  parti¬ 
cles.  The  mass  is  then  air-dried  on  a  steam-heated  plate. 

The  object  of  rolling  the  compound  instead  of  grind¬ 
ing  the  same  is  to  preserve  the  size  of  the  graphite  parti- 
oles  and  not  break  them  up  into  smaller  sizes  whioh  would 
be  small  enough  to  pass  through  the  perforations  in  the 
pockets,  and  also  to  obtain  the  thinnest  possible  layer  of 
oxide  upon  the  surface  of  eaoh  particle  of  graphite,  so  that 
the  ourrent  is  not  compelled  to  pass  from  partiole  to  parti- 
ole  through  a  greater  thiokness  Of  aotive  material  than  is 
absolutely  necessary.  The  large  proportion  of  graphite  re¬ 
latively  to  the  peroxide  is  used  beoause  the  latter  in  no 
stage  of  tho  operation  becomes  a  oonduotor,  except  possibly 
3 


I 


I  to  a  very  slight  extent,  so  that  it  is  desirable  that  a  thin 
layer  of  tho  oxide  should  ho  distributed  over  oaoh  graphite 
partiole  to  render  the  aotiro  material  as  sensltire  as  pos¬ 
sible  to  the  action  of  the  ourrent. 

The  mixture  of  the  nickel  hydroxide  and  graphite  is 
molded  into  blocks  under  pressure  and  inserted  in  perforated 
metallic  receptacles  or  pookets  secured  in  any  suitable  way 
to  proper  supporting  plates  or  grids,  whioh  electrodes  thus 
formed  are  employed  in  an  alkaline  eleotrolyte  with  any 
suitable  active  oxidlzable  material,  but  preferably  an  iron 
compound  capable  of  being  reduced  to  the  metallic  state  when 
subjected  to  the  charging  ourrent,  as  I  desoribe  in  my  said 
application. 

Having  now  described  my  invention,  what  I  olaim 
bb  new  and  desire  to  seoure  by  letters  Patent  1b  as  fol¬ 
lows  : 

1.  A  depolarizing  material  for  reversible  galvanic 
batteries,  consisting  of  the  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel  in 
non-oolloidal  form,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

2.  A  depolarizing  material  for  reversible  galvanic 

Cltvif  Cfrrct**-  uCo^r , 

batteries,  consisting  of  powdered  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

3.  Por  use  in  the  manufacture  of  positive  elec¬ 
trodes  for  reversible  galvanic  batteries,  a  mixture  of  non- 
oolloidal  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel,  and  a  flakelike  conduc¬ 
ting  material,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

iw-V. 

4.  Pop  use  in  the  manufacture  of  positive  elec¬ 
trodes  for  reversible  galvanic  batteries,  a  mixture  of  non- 
oolloidal  hydrated  oxide  of  niokel,  and  flake  graphite,  sub¬ 
stantially  as  set  forth. 


15.  For  use  in  the  manufacture  of  electrodes  for 
reversible  galvanio  batteries,  an  active  material  in  finely 
divided  powdered  form  applied  in  a  thin  layer  to  the  parti- 
oles  of  a  flakelike  conducting  material,  substantially  as 
set  forth. 

6.  For  use  in  the  manufacture  of  electrodes  for 
reversible  galvanic  batteries,  an  active  material  in  finely 
divided  powdered  form  applied  in  a  thin  layer  to  the  parti¬ 
cles  of  flake  graphite,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

7.  For  use  in  the  manufacture  of  positive  elec¬ 
trodes  for  reversible  galvanio  batteries,  dried  hydrated 
oxide  of  niokel  in  non-colloidal  powdered  form  applied  in  a 
thin  layer  to  the  particles  of  a  flakelike  conducting  mate¬ 
rial,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

6.  For  use  in  the  manufacture  of  positive  elec¬ 
trodes  for  reversible  galvanio  batterieB,  dried  hydrated 
oxide  of  niokel  in  non-oolloldal  powdered  form  applied  in  a 
thin  layer  to  the  particles  of  flake  graphite,  substantially 
as  set  forth. 

9.  'For  use  in  the  manufacture  of  positive  elec¬ 
trodes  for  reversible  galvanio  batteries,  a  oompressed  mix¬ 
ture  of  non-colloidal  hydrated  oxide  of  niokel,  and  a  flake¬ 
like  oonduoting  material,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

10.  For  use  in  the  manufacture  of  positive  elec¬ 
trodes  for  raversiblevgalvanio  batteries,  a  compressed  mix¬ 
ture  of  non-oolloidal. hydrated  oxide  of  niokel,  and  flake 
graphite,  substantially  as  Bet  forth. 


Department 


A.M.H. 


United  States  Patent  Office, 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 


Washington,  d.  C„ 


Care  Dyer,  Edmonds  &  Dyer, 


31  Nas sail  St., 

New  York,  N.  Y, 


Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application. 

No.  59,512,  filed  Hay  9,  1901 ,- "Depolarizer  for  Reversible 
Galvanic  Batteries" . 


The  formula  for  nickel  hydroxide  given  in  line  19,  page 
3,  is  incorrect;  the  formula  given  is  that  of  a  nickel  oxide. 

The  word  negat lve  should  be  substituted  for  the  word  "pos¬ 
itive"  in  claims  3,  4,  7,  8,  9  and  10. 

Claims  1,  3,  4,  7,  8,  9  and  10  are  objected  to  as  being 
indistinct  in  the  words  "non-colloidal" ;  it  has  not  been  set 
forth  in  the  description  just  what  is  meant  by  applicant's  hy¬ 
drated  oxide  of  nickel  being  non-colloidal,  nor  is  it  so  called 
in  the  description. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  word  dry  be  inserted  before 
"powder",  line  2,  claim  2. 

Claims  1  and  2  are  considered  to  be  the  same  in  scope 
since. it-da&tated  in  the  description  that  the  hydroxide  of  nickel 
made  by  applicant  will  be  in  a  powdered  form  when  dry. 

Claims  1  and  2  are  each  rejected  upon: 

British  14,508,  Nov.  3,  1884,  Reed,  (Batt . , Sec . ) ; 

British  1862,  Neb.  5,  1887,  Abel,  " 


Ex>r  Div. 


3. 


1  KUL1!j7'*'  I.U  °^Cri* nmendmont  t1ie  cxacfc  word  or  -words  to  he  strioken  out  or  inserted  in  the  application  must  be  specified 
separate  from  the  papers  previously  filed,  and  written  on  but  one  side  of  the  paper. 


.TJIQHAS  A.  BRXSOV 

MEOLARXZER  1’OR  REVERSIBLE  GALVANIC  BAT  SERIES 
EIIED  MAY  9,  1901 
SERIAL  HO.  59, 512 


ROOM  HO. 149. 


HOST.  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS, 

SIR: 

We  amend  -the  above-entitled  application  as  fol¬ 
lows 

Page  1,  line  SI,  after  "colloidal",  insert  - - or 

gelatinous  or  slimy - . 

Page  2,  line  19,  erase  "(JTiO)",  and  substitute  - - 

- ,_i.  e.,  Hi  (OH)g - . 

Page  4,  line  1?.,  after  the  word  "application"  in¬ 
sert  - By  the  expression  "non-colloidal",  as  used  by 

me  in  my  claims,  as  applied  to  the  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel, 
I  mean  the  oxide  in  granular  form  which  dries  to  a  powder, 
as  distinguished  from  the  oxide  in  the  colloidal,  gelatinous 
or  slimy  condition,  as  now  produced,  which  dries  to  a  hard 
glassy  mass,  with  the  disadvantages  before  indicated _ — - 

Claim  2,  line  2,  before  "powdered",  insert  — -dry--. 

Claims  5,  4,  7,  8,  9  and  10,  line  1  of  each,  erase 
"positive"  and  substitute - -negative - . 

Reconsideration  of  the  case  as  now  presented  is  re¬ 
spectfully  requested.  The  expression  "non-oolloidal",  at 
used  in  the  claims, has  been  explained. 

With  reforonae  to  the  Examiner's  objection  that  the 
first  and  second  olalms  both  cover  the  name  invention,  we 
direct  hio  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  second  claim  is 
limited  to  the  hydrate  in  dry  powdered  form,  and  hence  is 
more  definite  than  the  first  claim,  whiah  would  cover  the 


hydrate  in  its  wet  condition.  It  seems  obvious  that  the 
Reed  and  Abel  patents,  do  not  meet  the  terms  of  the  first 
two  claims,  since  neither  reference  makes  any  statement 
whatever  to  show  the  physical  characteristics  of  the  hy¬ 
drates  employed. 

Very  respectfully, 

THOMAS  A.  THIS  OH', 


Hew  York,  June  13,  1901. 

1.1  °\0)' 


Room  No.149.- 


United  States  Patent  Office, 


July  B,  1901. 


Thomas  A.  Rdison, 

Care  Dyer,  Rdmonds  &  Dyer, 
31  Has  sail  St., 

Hew  York,  H.  Y. 


it'  the.  EXAMINE H  i. 


$'  J.  (2 ti,- 


p 


Amendment  filed  July  2,  1901,  has  been  entered. 

The  word  "non-colloidal"  is  again  objected  to  in  the  claims*, 
since,  as  defined  by  the  above  amendment,  non-colloidal  means 

in  a  granular  form,  it  is  suggested  that  granular  be  sub¬ 
stituted. 

It  is  requested  that  a  specimen  of  the  oxide  employed  by 
applicant  be  furnished. 

Claims  1  and  2  are  again  rejected  upon  Reed  and  Abel,  of 
record.  In  the  absence  of  :  showing  that  Reed  and  Abel  do 

not  disclose  an  oxide  having  the  same^form  ef  applicant's,  the 
claims  are  still.-held  to  be  met. 

Ex'r  Div.  3. 


0  application  must  be  specified 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON  s 

depolarizer  tor  reversible  galvanic  batteries: 

:  ROOM  NO. 149. 

FILED  FAT  9,  1901  : 

SERIAL  NO.  59,512  • 

HON.  COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS, 

SIR: 

Please  amend  as  follows :  - 

Page  2,  line  14,  Before  "dries"  insert - ,  Being 

non-colloldal  in  fora,—— - . 

Claim  2,  line  2,  after  "powdered"  insert  — granu¬ 
lar - . 

Vo  note  that  the  Examiner  still  objects  to  the  ex¬ 
pression  "non-colloidal"  in  the  claims,  But  we  suBmit  that 
his  objection  should  Be  withdrawn,  particularly  in  view  of 
the  above  amendment.  In  describing  the  nickel  hydroxide 
made  By  usual  methods,  applicant  says  (p.  1,  line  21)  that 
it  "is  colloidal  or  gelatinous  or  slimy  in  form",  and  he 
points  out  the  several  practical  objections  thereto.  Re-_ 
forring  to  his  present  hydroxide,  he  says  (page  2,  line  14) 
that  it  is  "non-colloidal  in  fora"  and  "dries  to  a  powder", 
and  the  advantages  of  that  characteristic  are  fully  explained. 
At  the  close  of  the  specification,  applicant  explains  just 
what  he  moans  By  the  expression  "non-colloidal,  aB  used  By 
me  in  my  claims”,  namely,  "the  oxide  in  granular  form  which 
dries  to  a  powder,  as  distinguished  from  the  oxide  in  tho 
colloidal,  gelatinous  or  slimy  condition,  as  now  produced, 
which  drieB  to  a  hard  glassy  mass". 

Ho  one  reading  the  claims  could  Be  misled  as  -to 
what  they  cover,  and  when  claims  can  Be  subjected  to  that 
test  ,it  is  submitted  that  they  are  u.urioBjeetiona'ble.  We 
note  the  Examiner's  suggestion  that  the  expression  "granular 


) 


Iiorm"  'he  used,  hut  we  submit  that  that  expression  would  not 
he  apt  aa  applied  to  the  wet  or  undried  oxide,  which  the 
claims  should  ho  broad  enough  to  cover. 

In  repeating  the  first  two  claims  on  the  references 
of  record,  we  note  that  the  Examiner  says:- 

"In  the  absence  of  showing  that  Reed  mid  Abel 
do  not  disclose  an  oxide  having  the  same  physical 
form  as  applicant's,  the  claims  are  still  held  to 
oe  inetys 

In  this  ruling,  we  submit  tho  Examiner  has  mistaken  the  rule 
of  law  to  be  followed.  A  reference  to  be  good  should  dis- 
olose  the  olaimed  invention  olearly  and  unmiBtakeably;  if 
there  As  doubt  on  the  point,  it  should  be  waived  in  an  ap¬ 
plicant's  favor.  It  is  incumbent  upon  the  applicant  to 
distinguish  from  a  reference  only  when  the  Examiner  has  ap¬ 
parently  successfully  applied  it.-  In  the  present  case, 
both  Abel  and  Reed  are  Bilent  as  to  the  character  of  oxide 
used,  so  that  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  claimed  invention 
is  olearly  disclosed.  If  the  Examiner  still  is  of  the  view 
that  these  claims  are  met,  wa  ask  him  to  point  out  whore 
the  references  describe  a  hydrated  oxide  in  non-oolloidal 
or  granular  foraj  or  even  indioate  that  such  an  oxide  is 
desoribed. 

In  accordance  with  the  Examiner's  request,  wa  will 
furnish  a  specimen  of  applicant’s  oxide. 

Very  respectfully, 

SHOHAS  A.  KDISOH, 


His  Attorneys. 


Orange,  H.J.,  July  16,  1901. 


|  | 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

c/o  Dyer,  Edmonds  &  Dyer, 
31  Nassau  St . , 

New  York  City. 


Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application. 


Ser.  No.  59,512,  Ailed  May  9,  1901.  "Depolarizer  for  Reversible 
Galvanic  Batteries". 


The  amendment  and  argument  filed  July  17,  1901  has  been 
entered  and  considered. 

The  specimen  refered  to  in  the  above  amendment  has  not 
yet  been  received;  further  action  upon  the  merits  of  the  claims  is 
suspended  until  such  specimen  is  received. 

61/TT& — 


Examiner  Div.3, 


Case  Ho.  E-1058,  Abandoned, 

Piled  May  9,1901. 

Improvements  in  Depolarizers  for  Reversible  Galvanic 
Batteries. 

Claims. 

1.  A  depolarizing  material  for  reversible  galvanic 
batteries,  consisting  of  the  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel  in 
non-colloidal  form,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

2.  A  depolarizing  material  for  reversible  galvanic 
batteries,  consisting  of  powdered  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

3.  For  use  in  the  manufacture  of  positive  electrodes 
for  reversible  galvanic  batteries,  a  mixture  of  non-colloi- 
cal  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel,  and  a  flakelike  conducting 
'material,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

4.  For  use  in  the  manuf  ac  “,ure  of  positive  electrodes 
for  reversible  galvanic  batteries,  a  mixture  Sf  non-colloi¬ 
dal  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel ,  and  flake  graphite ,  substan¬ 
tially  as  set  forth. 

5.  For  use  in  the  nanufscture  of  electrodes  for 
reversible  galvanic  batteries,  an  active  material  in  finely 
divided  powdered  form  applied  in  a  thin  layer  to  the  parti¬ 
cles  of  a  flakelike  conducting  naterial,  substantially  as 
set  forth. 

6.  For  use  in  the  manufacture  of  electrodes  for  re¬ 
versible  galvanic  batteries,  an  active  material  in’ finely 
divided  powdered  form  applied  in  a  thin  layer  to  the  parti¬ 
cles  of  flake  graphite,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


7.  For  use  in  the  manufac  ture  of  positive  electrodes 
for  reversible  galvanic  batteries,  dried  hydrated  oxide  of 


ckel  in  non-colloidal  powdered  form  applied  in  a  thin 
yor  to  the  particles  of  a  flakelik-e  conducting  material 
bstantiaL  ly  as  set  forth. 

8.  For  use  in  the  manufacture  of  positive  electrode 
r  reversible  galvanic  batteries,  dried  hydrated  oxide 

niclcel  in  non-colloidal  powdered  form  applied  in  a  thi 
yer  to  the  particles  of  j'fl'dc e.lgraphite ,  substantially  a 
t  forth. 

9.  For  use  in  the  manufacture  of  positive  electrode 
r  reversible  galvanic  batteries,  a  compressed  mixture  o 
i-colloidal  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel,  and  a  flakelike 
nduoting  material,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

10  For  use  in  the  manufacture  of  positive  electrode 


•  W-AW/sr. 

'r/HJMnm,/.*. 

it.&yrn 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 
Orange, 


few. 

C^/v January  10,  1902. 


Dear  Sir,- 

Your  application  (E.  Ho.  1063)  for  Reversible  Gal¬ 
vanic  Batteries  employing  the  combination  of  cadmium  and 
oxide  of  nickel,  was  allowed  August  21st  1901  and  the  final 
fee  requires  to  be  paid  before  February  21st  next.  On  tak¬ 
ing  up  the  case  to  see  if  there  was  any  reason  why  the  fee 
should  not  be  paid,  we  note  that  the  prooess  described  in 
the  specification  for  making  the  niokel  is  the  so-called 
non-colloidal  process  of  precipitating  niokel  hydrate  by 
means  of  magnesium  hydroxide.  We  understand  that  there  was 
some  defect  in  this  process  and  that  it  is  not  now  used  by 
you.  Of  course  if  the  prooess  described  makes  an  operative 
nickel  hydroxide,  whether  non-oolloidal  or  not,  there  would 
be  a  sufficient  basis  for  the  olaims;  but  if  the  process  is 
inoperative,  we  think  the  patent  ought  not  to  issue  in  its 
present  form.  Please  advise  ub  whether  the  process  refer¬ 
red  to  is  sufficiently  operative  to  be  practical. 


-ffyr'T 


"a-U-T^ 


LAW  OFFICES 

OYER,  EDMONDS  &  DYER. 

patents  ana  patent  Causes. 


Petition. 


fto  the  (Commissioner  of  TPatents : 


your  petitioner ,  2K0KAR  A.  35DXSOH,  a  citizen  of  the  United 
StateB,  residing  and  having  his  post  office  address  at- Llewellyn 
Park,  Orange,  Essex  County,  Hew  Jersey, 

PRAYS  THAT  LETTERS  PATENT  MAY  BE  GRANTED  TO  HIM  FOR  THE  XiiPROVRD  PRO¬ 
CESS  OF  KAKIHG  KraCTROLYTI CAILY-ACTIVE  FIUShY  IDIVIIM)  IR01T 


SET  FORTH  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION  i  AND  HE  HEREBY  APPOINTS  OYER,  EDMONDS 
AND  DYER,  REGISTRATION  NO.  2686  (A  FIRM  COMPOSED  OF  RICHARD  N.  DYER,  SAMUEL 
O.  EDMONDS  AND  FRANK  L.  DYER),  OF  NO.  31  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  HIS 
ATTORNEYS,  WITH  FULL  POWER  OF  SUBSTITUTION  AND  REVOCATION,  TO  PROSECUTE 
THIS  APPLICATION,  TO  MAKE  ALTERATIONS  AND  AMENDMENTS  THEREIN,  TO  RECEIVE 
THE  PATENT,  AND  TO  TRANSACT  ALL  BUSINESS  IN  THE  PATENT  OFFICE  CONNECTED 
THEREWITH. 


Ispeoipioation. 

TO  WXM  IT  MAY  CONCERN: 

Be  it  known  that  I,  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange,  in 
the  County  of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey,  have  invented 
a  oertain  new  and  useful  IMPROVED  PROCESS  OP  MAKING  EKECTRO- 
LYTICALLY- ACTIVE  PINELY  DIVIDED  IRON  (case  No.  1069),  of 
whioh  the  following  is  a  description: 

My  invention  relates  to  an  improved  prooess  or  methoi 
of  making  eleotrolytically-aotive  finely  divided  iron  suita¬ 
ble  for  use  with  my  improved  storage  battery  employing  niok- 
el  hydrate  as  the  depolarizer,  but  capable  of  use  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  any  reversible  galvanic  cell  having  an  alkaline 
eleotrolyte  and  wherein  on  discharge  an  oxidation  of  one  of 
the  active  materials  is  effeoted. 

My  objeot  is  to  provide  a  prooess  by  whioh  finely 
divided  iron,  eleotrolytically  active  to  a  practical  and 
useful  extent,  can  be  obtained  at  low  cost,  in  commercial 
quantity,  and  in  suoh  form  that  it  may  be  stored  and  handled 
without  objectionable  deterioration  of  its  eleotrolytically- 
aotive  properties. 

In  effecting  this  object,  I  obtain  an  eleotrolyti- 
cally-active  iron  oxide  by  roducing  a  suitable  compound  of 
iron,  preferably  ferric  oxide  (Pe203) ,  by  means  of  hydrogen 
gas  in  the  presence  of  heat  maintained  at  suoh  a  temperature 
as  to  make  the  reduced  oxide  eleotrolytioally  aotive  in  al¬ 
kaline  solutions,  and  I  subject  the  latter  oxide  to  further 
treatment  to  make  it  non-pyrophorio,  so  that  it  may  be  stor¬ 
ed  and  handled  without  objectionable  deterioration. 

i 


I  A  preferable  way  to  oarry  out  my  improved  method  is 

the  following :  Oxalate  of  iron  la  first  ignited  in  the 
air,  so  as  to  burn  to  ferric  oxide,  or  the  latter  oxide  is 
obtained  by  other  approved  methods.  The  ferric  oxide  is 
then  charged  in  a  chamber  or  retort  closely  sealed  againBt 
atmospheric  air,  and  hydrogen  is  introduced  within  the  cham¬ 
ber  or  retort  to  displace  the  air  therein,  and  the  passage 
of  hydrogen  is  maintained  during  the  heating  and  oooling  of 
the  charge.  The  chamber  or  retort  is  now  subjected  to  a 
gradually  increasing  heat  until  a  final  temperature  of  about 
degrees  Fahrenheit  is  readied,  for  about  twenty 
hours,  after  which  the  charge  is  allowed  to  oool,  while 
Btill  BUbjeoted  to  the  reducing  gas,  with  the  exclusion  of 
atmospherio  air  or  other  oxidising  influence.  If  after 

I  cooling,  air  were  admitted  to  the  ohamber  or  retort,  there 
would  be  danger  of  the  oxide  being  spontaneously  ignited 
and  reconverted  to  the  ferrio  state.  I  therefore  prefer 
to  flood  the  chamber  or  retort  with  water  after  the  cooling 
[has  been  ef footed,  so  as  to  mix  thoroughly  with  the  reduced 
oxide,  forming  a  pasty  mass  whioh  is  non-pyrophorio,  and 
whioh  in  that  condition  oan  he  stored  indefinitely  and  hand¬ 
led  without  deterioration.  The  effeot  of  the  reducing  hy¬ 
drogen  gas  and  heat  on  the  ferrio  oxide  in  the  method,  is 
to  reduce  such  oxide  in  part  at  least  to  a  lower  condition 
of  oxidation,  making  it  eleotrolytioally  active  in  alkalino 
solutions. 

While  a  definite  ohemioai  analysis  of  the  material 
as  finally  secured  has  not  been  made,  owing  to  its  com¬ 
plexity  and  apparent  unstability  in  the  presence  of  ohemi¬ 
oai  testa,  it  seems  quite  probable  that  the  material  is  a 

[lixture  of  oxides,  namely  ferrio  oxide  (FegOg),  ferrous 
xide  (FeO),  and  a  lower  oxide  (FeOg),  the  existence  of 

_  2 _ _ 


I  which  has  been  suspected  by  ohemists,  though  bo  far  as  I 
know,  it  has  never  been  praotioally  produced,  at  least  as 
active  material  for  a  storage  battery.  The  active  mate¬ 
rial  obtained  by  my  process  is  capable  of  being  electrolyti- 
eally  reduced  in  an  alkaline  solution  durine  the  charging 
operation,  and  of  being  electrolytioally  oxidised  when  op¬ 
posed  by  a  suitable  depolarizer,  and  being  insoluble  in  such 
solutions,  it  is  especially  fitted  for  use  in  batteries  of 
the  type  suggested  by  me  wherein  permanence  is  obtained  by 
employing  insoluble  active  materials  carried  by  nickel  or 
niokelplated  supports.  The  degree  of  temperature  and  time 
of  reduction  necessary  to  properly  carry  out  the  process, 
depend  upon  the  quality  or  condition  of  the  ferric  oxide. 

A  lower  reducing  temperature  can  be  employed,  and  the  pro¬ 
cess  oan  be  carried  out  in  less  time,  when  the  ferrio  oxide 
is  in  extremely  finely  divided  oondition,  than  would  other¬ 
wise  be  possible. 

I  Having  now  described  my  invention,  what  I  claim  is: 

1.  The  process  of  making  electro lytically-aotivo 
finely  divided  iron,  which  oonsiBts  in  reduoing  an  iron  com¬ 
pound  by  hydrogen  in  the  presence  of  heat  until  an  eleotro- 
lytioally-active  oxide  is  obtained,  substantially  as  set 
forth. 

3.  The  prooess  of  making  eleotrolytloally-aotive 
finely  divided  iron,  whioh  consists  in  reduoing  an  iron  com¬ 
pound  by  hydrogen  in  the  presence  of  heat  until  an  eleotro- 
lytically-active  oxide  is  obtained,  and  in  oooling  the  oxide 
v/hile  still  subjected  to  hydrogen,  with  the  exclusion  of 
oxidizing  influences,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

3.  The  process  of  making  eleotrolytically-aotive 
finely  divided  iron,  whioh  consists  in  reduoing  an  iron  oon- 
3 


I  pound  by  hydrogen  in  the  presenoe  of  heat  until  an  aleotro- 
lytioally-active  oxide  is  obtained,  and  in  finally  floodinc 
the  oxide  so  obtained  with  water,  with  the  exclusion  of  oxi¬ 
dizing  influences,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

4.  The  process  of  making  eleotrolytioally-aotire 
finely  divided  iron,  whioh  aonsiBts  in  reduoing  an  iron  com¬ 
pound  by  hydrogen  in  the  presenoe  of  heat  until  an  eleotro- 
lytioally-active  oxide  is  obtained,  in  oooling  the  oxide 
while  still  subjected  to  hydrogen,  with  the  exclusion  of 
oxidizing  influences,  and  in  flooding  the  oxide  with  water, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

5.  The  process  of  making  electrolytioally-aotivo 
finely  divided  iron,  which  consists  in  reduoing  ferric  o±ido 
by  hydrogen  in  the  presence  of  heat  until  an  eleotrolytical- 
ly-aotive  oxide  is  obtained,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

6.  The  prooesa  of  making  eleotrolytically-aotivo 
finely  divided  iron,  which  consists  in  reduoing  ferric  oxide 
by  hydrogen  in  the  presenoe  of  heat  until  an  eleotrolytioal- 
ly-aotive  oxide  is  obtained,  and  in  cooling  the  oxide  so  ob- 

ttained  while  still  subjected  to  hydrogen,  with  the  exclusion 
f  oxidizing  influences,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

7.  The  prooess  of  making  eleotrolytioally-aotivo 
inely  divided  iron,  whioh  consists  in  reduoing  ferrio  oxide 
by  hydrogen  in  the  presenoe  of  heat  until  an  eleotrolytical- 
ly-active  oxide  is  obtained,  and  in  finally  flooding  the 
oxide  so  obtained  with  water,  with  the  exclusion  of  oxidi¬ 
sing  influences,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

8.  The  process  of  making  elsctrolytioally-aotivo 
finely  divided  iron,  whioh  consists  in  reducing  ferrio  oxide 
>y  hydrogen  in  the  presenoe  of  heat  until  an  electrolytioal- 
Ly-aotive  oxide  is  obtained,  in  oooling  the  oxide  while 
still  subjected  to  hydrogen,  with  the  exclusion  of  oxidizing 

SiSrS's^rthf10"41”6  *h8  wlth  «*«■< 

4 


L 


SPECIFICATION  SIGNED  AND  WITNESSED  *1 


Oath. 


THQKA £5  A.  EDISON  n 


of  the  Uni tod  States,  and  a  resident  of  Llewellyn  Part,  Orance, 
in  the  County  of  Us a ox  and  State  of  New  Jersey} 


IMPROVED  PROCESS  OP  MAKING  KTJSCTROLYTICALLY-AOTIVE  PINEEIT 


RE  THAN  TWO  YEAR8  PRIOR  TO  THIS  APPLICATION,  AND  THAT  NO  APPLICATION 
t  FOREIGN  PATENT  HAS  BEEN  FILED  BY  HIM  OR  HI.S  LEGAL  REPRESENTATIVES  OR 


Case  No.  13-1069, 


Not  filed. 


Improved  process  of  Making  Nlectrolytically  Active 
Finely  Divided  Iron. 


C  1  i 


i  m 


1.  The  process  of  making  electrolytically-active  finely 
divided  iron,  which  consists  in  reducing  an  iron  compound 
by  hydrogen  in  the  presence  of  heat  until  an  electrolyti- 
c ally- active  oxide  is  pbtained  ,  substantially  as  set  forth] 

2.  The  process  of  making  electrolytically-active 
finely  divided  iron,  which  consists  in  reducing  an  iron 

compound  by  hydrogen  in  the  presence  of  heat  rmtil  an 

and  in  cooling  the  oxide  while  still  subjected  to  hyjdrcgen 
electrolytically-active  oxide  is  obtained, /with  the  ex- 

elusion  of  oxidizing  influences,  substantially  as  set 
forth. 

3.  The  process  of  rnakiig  electrolytically-active 
finely  divided  iron,  which  sonsssts  in  reducing  an  iron 
compound  by  hydrogen  in  the  presence  of  heat  until  an 
electrolytically-active  oxide  is  obtained,  and  in  finally 
flooding  the  oxide  so  obtained  with  water,  with  the  ex¬ 
clusion  of  oxidizing  influences,  substantially  as  set 
forth. 

4.  The  process  of  making  eleotrolytically-ac.tive 
finely  divided  iron,  which  consists  in  reducing  an  iron 
compound  by  hydrogen  in  the  presence  of  heat  until  mn 
electrolytically-active  oxide  is  obtained,  in  cooling  the 
oxide  while  still  subjected  to  hydrogen,  with  the  exclusion] 
of  oxidizing  influences,  and  in  flooding  the  oxide  with 
water,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

5.  The  process  of  making  electrolytically-active 
finely  divided  iron,  which  consists  in  reducing  ferric 


oxide  Toy  hydrogen  in  the?  presence  of  heat  until  an 
eleptrolytically-active  oxide  is  obtained,  subsia  ntiallj 
as  3et  forth. 

6.  The  process  of  making  electrolytically-active 
finely-divided  iron,  which  consists  in  reducing  ferric 
oxide  by  hydrogen  in  the  presence  of  heat  until  an  elec- 
trolytibally-aotive  oxide  is  obtained,  and  in  cooling 
the  oxide  so  obtained  while  still  subjected  to  hydrogen, 
with  the  exclusion  of  oxidizing  influences,  substantia' 
as  set  forth. 

7.  The  process  of  making  electrolytically-active 
finely  divided  iron,  which  consists  in  reducing  ferric 
oxide  by  hydrogen  in  the  presence  of  heat  until  an 
alactrielytically-active  oxide  is  obtained,  and  in  final 
flooding  the  oxide  so  obtained  with  water,  with  the  ex¬ 
clusion  of  oxidizing  influences,  substantially  as  set 
forth. 

3.  The  process  of  making  electrolytically-active 
finely  divided  iron,  which  consists  in  reducing  ferric 
oxide  by  hydrogen  in  the  presence  of  heat  until  an  elec- 
trolytically-actlve  oxide  is  obtained,  in  cooling  the 
oxide  while  still  subjected  .to  hydrogen,  v/ith  the  exclu¬ 


sion  of  oxidizing  influences,  and  in  flooding  the  oxide 
with  water,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


Serial 


,  ic  t . 


Filed  —  r(D  yf  ?sS  J?  . 


Examiner's  Room  No  ....?■»£  <s'/ . 


' '  '  Liberal . 6'(r . Page  .  i 


3  . 18./....:; 

4 ...  19.J  ...:l 


2i.(. 


FRANK  L.  DYER, 
Counsel,. 

ORANGE,  NEW  JERSEY 


7 

5 


Petition. 

5o  the  Commissioner  of  IPatents: 

your  petitioner,  THOHAS  A.  EDISOS,  a  oitlaen  of  the  United 
States,  residing  arts  having  hia  post  office  address  at  Llewellyn 
Parle,  Orange,  Essex  County,  Uew  Jersey, 

PRAYS  THAT  LETTERS  PATENT  MAY  BE  GRANTED  TO  HIM  FOR  THE  IMPR0VEKSTT3 

IN  NT CKELPIiATHD  ARTICLES 


LAW  OFFICES 

Q  DYER.  EDMONDS  &  DYER. 

patents  ana  patent  Causes, 


I  r 

L  © 

fe  ' 


SET  FORTH  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION;  AND  HE  HEREBY  APPOINTS  DYER,  EDMONDS 
AND  DYER,  REGISTRATION  NO.  2588  (A  FIRM  COMPOSED  OF  RICHARD  N.  DYER,  SAMUEL 
O,  EDMONDS  AND  FRANK  L.  DYER),  OF  NO.  31  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  HIS 
ATTORNEYS,  WITH  FULL  POWER  OF  SUBSTITUTION  AND  REVOCATION,  TO  PROSECUTE 
THIS  APPLICATION,  TO  MAKE  ALTERATIONS  AND  AMENDMENTS  THEREIN,  TO  RECEIVE 
THE  PATENT,  AND  TO  TRANSACT  ALL  BUSINESS  IN  THE  PATENT  OFFICE  CONNECTED 
THEREWITH. 


SPEQIPIOATION. 


TO  WHOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN : 

Bo  it  known  that  I,  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange,  in 
the  County  of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey,  have  invented 
certain  new  and  useful  IMPROVEMENTS  IN  NICKELPLATEED  ARTICLES 
(case  No.  1070))  of  whioh  the  following  is  a  description. 

My  invention  relates  to  a  new  manufacture,  namely 
a  steel  or  iron  article  having  a  welded  niokel  coating 
thereon,  the  joint  between  the  metals  being  free  of  oxide 
of  either  metal.  The  invention  is  applicable  to  artioleo 
in  their  final  shape,  suoh  as  oans,  dishes  etc.,  as  well  as 
to  forms  out  of  which  articles  are  to  be  subsequently  pro¬ 
duced,  such  as  sheets,  plates  and  billets. 

In  producing  my  improved  niokelplated  artioles,  I 
prefer  to  oarry  out  the  process^which  I  claim  in (my  applica¬ 
tion  for) Letters  Patentffiled  February  14w  Serial* " 

No.  94,040^) of  whioh  the  present  case  is  a  division.  That 
process  is  carried  out  as  follows: 

Iron  or  steel  sheets,  or  artioles  made  from  iron  or 
steel  whether  in  sheet  form  or  oast  or  wrought,  are  first 
electroplated  with  a  thin  ooating  of  niokel  in  an  ordinary 
electrolytic  bath.  The  sheets  or  articles  are  then  prefer¬ 
ably  piled  or  nested  together  so  as  to  oooupy  as  minii  a 
space  as  possible,  and  are  placed  in  a  oast  iron  chamber  or 
day  retort  whioh  is  olosely  sealed.  A  non-oxidizing  at¬ 
mosphere  is  then  created  in  the  chamber  or  retort,  prefera¬ 
bly  by  passing  hydrogen  gas  through  the  same,  to  displace 
the  air  therein.  The  sheets  or  artioles  are  now  subjected 

1 


I  to  a  temperature  sufficient  to  weld  the  film  of  niokel  to 
the  iron  or  steel  baoklng  while  the  non-oxidizing  gas  is 
passing,  after  whioh  the  chamber  or  retort  and  its  contents 
are  oooled  down  below  the  oxidizing  point  while  the  artiolos 
or  sheets  are  still  surrounded  by  the  gas,  whereupon  the 
latter  may  be  removed  and  a  freBh  charge  introduced  into 
the  ohamber.  I  find  i*  practioe  that  the  sheets  or  arti¬ 
cles  should  be  heated  to  a  bright  yellow,  at  which  point 
the  niokel  welds  to  the  iron  or  steel  so  that  it  becomes 
integral  with  it,  and  at  the  same  time  the  surface  of  the 
niokel  becomes  very  bright.  The  weld,  in  fact,  between 
the  nickel  and  the  iron  or  steel  is  so  perfect  that  sheets 
plated  in  this  way  can  be  formed  into  various  articles  by 
the  drawing  or  stamping  process  without  cracking  or  flaking 
the  film,  which  is  not  the  oase  when  the  film  has  not  been 
subjected  to  the  welding  prooess.  In  fact,  I  find  that  no 
matter  how  carefully  sheets  of  iron  or  steel  may  be  electro¬ 
plated  with  nickel,  any  attempt  to  draw  or  stamp  artioles 
therefrom  results  in  the  cracking  or  flaking  of  the  niokel 
coating  owing  to  the  condition  of  tension  of  the  latter, 
whioh  condition  is  relieved  by  the  welding  prooess  describ¬ 
ed.  The  welding  process  serves  also  to  anneal  the  sheets 
for  the  first  operation  of  drawing. 

So  perfect  is  the  result  secured  by  my  prooess  that 
cans  and  dishes  made  thereby  may  be  substituted ,  in  many 
cases  for  similar  artioles  made  of  tinned  iron  plates  by 
known  processes.  Hiokel  artioles  made  by  my  process  can 
be  produoed  more  oheaply  than  those  made  from  tinned  iron, 
since  the  thiokness  of  the  nickel  film  is  very  much  less 
than  the  thiokness  of  the  tin  coating  on  the  latter  arti¬ 
oles. 

2 


'—Ml. 


Department  of  the  Interior, 


SERIES  OF  1900. 

,/M,  /O  f 


s^  l  902  3 

Kington,  D.  C.,  I 


3  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  petition t  specification ,  oath ,  and  § 
2  drawing  of  your  alleged  Improvement  in  ltd  CsflLtsC.  -  j>C_  | 

j  62^Xc  .  .  £ 


3  with  Fifteen  Dollars  as  the  first  fee  payable  thereon.  Jj 

?  The  papers  are  duly  filed,  and  your  application  for  a  patent  will  he  taken  I 
>  S 

*  ap  for  examination  in  its  order _ _ _  g 


You  loill  he  duly  advised  of  the  examination. 


Very  respectfully, 


&.J. 


iUst  d-4  f  J 


I 

Commissioner  of  Patents.  | 


'J?/'  7/?  t 


V 


II  application  fora  patent,  tlie  inventor  is  by  law  required  to  famish  his  petition,  specification, 
“  admito  of  drawings)  and  to  pay  tho  required  fee. 

nor  con  any  official  action  be  bad  thereon,  until  all  its  parts,  os  hero  specified,  are 


I  rowings  (where  tho  iu 
plication  is  considered  i 


w  required  to  famish  his  petition,  i 


0 


^  Paper  IT  •  .1. . 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR,  B.J5.J4, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  d.  c 

Thomas  A.  Btli Soft, 

Co  Dyer,  Bdmonds  A  Dyer, 

31  Nassau  Street., 

New  York  City. 

Please,  find  below  a  communication,  from  the  EXAMINER  in 

for  “Nickel-plated  Articles,"  filed  April  9, 1902, Serial  No.  102,109. 


charge  of 


jaasaft^ 


R  J.  , 


The  claims  seek  to  distinguish  from  an  ordinary  nickel-plated 
article  by  the  introduction  of  a  step  of  the  method,  viz,  the  welding, 
which  is  objectionable,  and  are  unpatentable  thereover  for  i'Mi  reason. 

The  novelty,  if  any,  lies  in  the  method. 

The  article  could  not  be  distinguish  by  inspection  from  nickel- 
plated  articles  made  by  another  process  and  when  the  method  is  intro¬ 
duced  into  the  claims  in  an  attempt  to  distinguish  the  article'  from 
one  made  by  another  process,  the  claim  is  for  the  same  invention  a‘s 
the  method  claims  and  isAthe  wrong  form.  The  following  references  are 
cited  as  tending  to  show  that  "weided"  coatings  are  old: - 

British  patent  to  Clark,  3122  of  1882; 

U.s.  patent  to  Pleltmann,  242.194^Jfay  3lVi681:  (both  lh’ 
class  206,  Compound  Ingots  for  Plate). 

The  claims  are  rejeoted.  ' 

Case  No..A£..Pap$  ho,./ . 


C 


LICENSE. 

WHEREAS,  I,  THOMAS  A.  EDISOH,  of  Llewellyn  Park,  Es¬ 
sex  County,  New  Jersey,  have  invented  an  IMPROVEMENT  IK 
NICKED  PLATED  ARTICLES,  for  whioh  an  application  for  Lettern 
Patent  of  the  United  States  was  filed  May  12,  1902,  Serial 
Ho.  102,109;  and 

WHEREAS,  EDISON  STORAGE  BATTERY  COMPANY,  a  corpora¬ 
tion  organised  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Hew  Jersey  anti 
having  its  principal  place  of  business  at  Orange,  Essex 
County,  said  State,  is  desirous  of  securing  a  license  under 
the  patent  whioh  may  issue  upon  the  aforesaid  application 
for  use  in  connection  with  the  manufacture  of  storage  bat¬ 
teries  and  for  no  other  purpose; 


HOW,  THEREFORE,  To  all  whom  it  may  concern,  be  it 
known  that  for  and  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  One  Dol¬ 
lar  to  me  in  hand  paid,  rooeipt  of  whioh  is  hereby  acknow¬ 
ledged,  and  of  other  good  and  valuable  consideration,  I,  th^ 
said  Thomas  A.  Edison,  do  hereby  license  and  empower  the 
said  Edison  Storage  Battery  Company  and  its  successors  in 
business  to  use  the  said  invention  as  fully  as  the  same  is 
set  forth  in  the  application  referred  to  or  the  patent  whioljt 
may  issue  upon  said  application,  within  the  territory  of 
the  United  States,  and  in  connection  with  the  manufacture 
of  storage  batteries  and  for  no  other  purpose. 

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
affixed  my  seal  this  A/  day  of  November^  1902, 

Signed,  Bealed  and  delivered  : 
in  the  presence  of,  — • 

State  of  Hew  Jersey,! 

:bs: 

County  of  Essex,  : 

On  this  / ^'day  of  November,  1902,  before  me, 


I 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON 
N I OKELPLATED  ARTICLES 
PILED  APRIL  9,  1902 

SERIAL  NO.  102,109 
ROOM  NO.  251 

HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS, 

SIR  : - 

In  view  of  the  Examiner' b  oritioism 
of  the  olaima,  we  amend  by  erasing  the  claims  and  substi¬ 
tuting  the  following: 

— *" — h- —  l.c  _As  a./neW\manuf  aoture ,  steely  or  iron  articles 
having  a  nickel'''f  ilm  intimately  associated  with  the  Burfa^oo 
thereoXand  free  of  any  oondition  of  tension, ^suTpiatant tally 
as  set  fort^/ 

p*  y{.  As  a  new  manufacture,  steel  or  iron  articles 
•  having  a  niokel  film  intimately  associated  with  the  surfaoe 
thereof  and  free  of  any  condition  of  tension,  the  joint  be¬ 
tween  the  metals  being  free  of  oxide  of  either  metal,  sub¬ 
stantially  aB  Bet  forth. - 

Applicant  has  now  limited  his  claims  in  such  a  way 
as  to  overoome  the  objection  urged  by  the  Examiner.  The 
new  niokelplated  articles  are  distinguished  in  a  physical 
sense  from  ordinary  niokelplated  articles  in  the  reBpeot 
that  the  nickel  coating  is  free  of  any  condition  of  tension, 
and  in  a  ohemioal  sense  from  the  fact  that  in  the  joint  be¬ 
tween  the  metals  there  is  no  oxide  of  either  metal. 

So  far  as  the  references  to  Clark  and  to  Pleitmann 
are  concerned,  we  oall  the  Examiner's  attention  to  the  faot 
that  neither  patent  shows  a  niokelplated  artiole,  but  in 
each  case  a  sheet  of  nickel  is  welded  to  a  sheet  of  some 
other  metal.  Applicant  distinguishes  from  these  oon- 


Case  No...  A£.  Paper  Nc 


struotions  toy  limiting  his  olaimB  to  artioles  having  nickel 
films. 

-,:;v  We  hope  the  oaBe  as  now  presented  may  toe  allowed. 

Very  respootfully, 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON, 

By  _ 

Attorneys. 

New  York,  January  28,  1903. 


Case  No..,idz...Paper  No,...sk" 


S  ^  Room  No. — 

Woshington,  D.  C." 


United  States  Patent  Office, 


Thomas  A,  Edison, 

Care,  Dyer,  Edmonds  ft  Dyer, 

31  Nassau  Street,  |  ^EBllJ9 03  ] 

New  York  City.  J 

Please  find,  below  a  communication  from  the" EXAMINER  in  charge  oPySnF^^aHo. 

for  "Nickel-Plated  Articles,"  filed  Apr.  9,  1902,  Serial  No. 


The  claims  presented  by  amendment  filed  Jan.  30,  1903,  are 


anticipated  by  and  rejected  on  the  patent  to  Adams,  154,435,  Aug. 
25,  1874. 


Case  No, /’...Paper  No,.\,£„ 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPPICE. 


Thomas  A, Edison, 

Nickel  plated  Articles, 
Piled  April  9,1902, 
Serial  No. 102, 109. 


Room  No. 251. 


Hon.  Commissioner  of  Patents, 

Sir:- 

1  amend  by  erasing  Claim  1  and  the 
numeral  of  the  second.  Reconsideration  is  requested.  With 
applicant's  article  the  joint  between  the  niokel  and  iron 
or  steel  is  absolutely  free  of  oxid  of  either  metal,  and 
this  result  becomes  possible  only  when  the  welding  is 
effected  in  a  non-oxidizing  atmosphere.  With  the  Adams 
patent  .  the  welding  would  inevitably  be  accompanied  by  oxida¬ 
tion,  and  in  faot  the  patent  says  that  a  low  red  heat  is 
used,,to  the  best  advantage,  the  niokel  oxidizing  too  rapid¬ 
ly  at  a  higher  temperature".  This  certainly  would  indi¬ 
cate  that  the  patentee  knew  that  some  oxidation  takes  plaoe 
even  at  a  low  red  heat,  which  is  of  oourse  a  faot.  Although 
the  difference  between  the  two  articles  may  be  refined,  it 
is  important  and  useful,  and  it  is  hoped  therefore  that  the 
Claim  may  be  allowed. 

Very  respectfully, 

Thos.  A. Edison, 

By 

Orange,  N.J. 

December  3,1903. 


Case  Paper  No,. 


His  Attorney, 


2—2(10. 


Room  No— 329.. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR. 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  o.  c.,  Deo.  31 , 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 


Care,  Prank  Li  Dyer, 

Edison  Labratory, 

Orange,  N.J. 

Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  ii 


for  "Nickel -Plated  Articles,  filed  April  9,  1902,  Serial  No. 108,109. 


_ _  ,  _ _  Commissioner  of  Patents. 

Responding  to  amendment  filed  Deo.-  4,  1903: 

In  accordance  with  the  rulings  of  the'pOmmissiorier  ,  “Case 
should  be  eliminated 

No.  1070, “^from  the  first  paragraph,  page  1. 

Since  the  application  referred  to  on  page  1  has  resulted  in 
a  patent  the  number  and  date  of  the  patent  should  be  substituted  for 
the  number  and  date  of  the  application. 


The  article  defined  in  the  claim  can  differ  from  those  aka 
disclosed  in  the  references  of  record  only  in  degree  and  not  in  kind. 
Every  one  skilled  in  the  art  of  welding  is  aware  that  it  is  desirable 


to  have  the  surfaces  to  come  in  contact  iggfc  the  welding  operation 
free  of  oxide,  and  attempts  in  welding  are  always  made  to  produce 
this  result.  There  is  no  invention  in  the  conception  of  an  article 
consisting  of  two  plates  welded  together  free  of  oxide  in  the  joint. 

If  any  invention  exists  in  the  disclosure  of  this  application,,  it  is 
held  to  be  in  the  method  of  procedure  by  which  the  article  may  be 
produced  and  not  in  the  article.  The  claim  is  therefore  a  second  ], 
time  rejected.  '  .-,-7-;-.- 

7  JAN  \0 


,  \  I8O1 

'%:r; 


Folio  No.  M 


Serial  No.  //C: 


ul^L . O: . di 


Examiner’s  Room  No 


1 . /?<\ 

4—fc  <*(■<<<-  — t*y.  jJ&C  ; 


rjs  1 6... . .  v.' . . 

,  /;,  >  J  7 . 

\  . .  &***’.. . 

^ ZJh c>  J  9 . . V^f T&rrTd.W?! . . .  . . 


-  7  StTlfll  ^d/'W,  d(v~'y.  //?<X276Kt  *i**+~~^  ~  *~-3  -tt—  <=--^*-3 

9  J5 1,"  <■&»,„  24,.. fax*. . . ,C. , . . .^. .:  .^.: . . 

ft,' .10  . few <^..:.£v* 


'  J I  ,d£*.  /?.  ’u'(<rh  ffi't  t*r«'<^26...J^..^ 


§'  12 


....?f:..rflj-w,...; 


,:i^,^:.;^,^j^.f.^v28.... 

. . . . . 29.... 


FRANK  L.  DYER,  ;  r  , 
Counsel, 

A  '  ORANGE,  NEW  JERSEY. 


LAW  OFFICES 

DYER.  EDMONDS  &  DYER. 

patents  ano  patent  Causes. 


Petition. 


Co  the  Commissioner  of  Fatents : 

your  petitioner  1’HOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States*  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange,  in  the  County 
of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey,  whose  post  office  address  As 
Orange,  Re?/  Jersey, 

PRAYS  THAT  LETTERS  PATENT  MAY  BE  GRANTED  TO  HIM  FOR  THE  IMPR0V3MMT 

IN  PROCESSES  OP  MAKING  SOUND  RECORDS 


SET  FORTH  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION ;  AND  HE  HEREBY  APPOINTS  DYER,  EDMONDS 
AND  DYER,  REGISTRATION  NO.  2S8S  (A  FIRM  COMPOSED  OF  RICHARD  N.  DYER,  SAMUEL 
O.  EDMONDS  AND  FRANK  L.  DYER),  OF  NO.  31  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  HIS 
ATTORNEYS,  WITH  FULL  POWER  OF  SUBSTITUTION  AND  REVOCATION,  TO  PROSECUTE 
THIS  APPLICATION,  TO  MAKE  ALTERATIONS  AND  AMENDMENTS  THEREIN,  TO  RECEIVE 
THE  PATENT,  AND  TO  TRANSACT  ALL  BUSINESS  IN  THE  PATENT  OFFICE  CONNECTED 
THEREWITH. 


SPEiCimCAl'IOH. 


TO  ALL  WHOM  IT  ?*!AY  CONCERN: 

Be  it  known  that  I,  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  oitizen  of 
the  United  States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange,  Essex 
County,  State  of  Hew  .Tersey,  have  invented  a  certain  new 
and  useful  IMPHOVEMENT  IN  PROCESSES  OP  MAKING  SOUND  RECORDS 
(Case  No.  1072),  of  which  the  following  is  a  description: 


My  invention  relates  to  processes  for  making  sound 
records  of  the  type  in  whioh  the  record  constitutes  a  Binu- 
oub  groove  of  substantially  uniform  depth  and  width,  as  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  a  phonographic  record  wherein  these  dimen¬ 
sions  are  not  uniform.  Sound  records  of  the  kind  to  whioh 
my  present  invention  relates  are  relatively  simple  in  char¬ 
acter,  and  the  matter  of  duplicating  them  does  not  present 
the  difficulties  of  duplicating  phonographic  records. 

Prior  to  my  invention,  in  the  making  of  sound  rec¬ 
ords  on  a  disk  blank,  for  example, in  the  form  of  a  sinuous 
groove  of  substantially  uniform  depth  and  width,  a  suit¬ 
able  plate  or  foundation  was  covered  with  a  thin  layer  or 
film  of  wax  like  material,  which  was  engaged  by  a  needle¬ 
like  recording  stylus  connected  to  the  diaphragm,  the 
arrangement  being  such  that  in  the  absence  of  vibrationB 
the  stylus  removed  the  film  of  waxlike  material  to  its  full 
depth  to  disclose  the  foundation,  and  in  the  form  of  a 
spiral  groove  of  uniform  width.  By  vibrating  the  dia¬ 

phragm,  the  said  groove  was  oaused  to  partake  of  sinuos¬ 
ities  and  undulations  corresponding  graphically  to  the 
sound  waves.  By  suitable  etching,  electroplating,  pho¬ 

tographic  or  allied  processes,  a  matrix  was  secured  from 
the  master  so  formed,  and  used  for  the  production  of  dup}.i- 
-1- 


catss  by  various  methods. 

The  prooesseB  used  prior  to  my  invention  for  the 
j  making  of  these  records  were  objectionable  for  many  reasons, 
| and  especially  because  the  records  produced  are  not  accu¬ 
rately  representative  of  the  sound  vibrations,  first,  be¬ 
cause  the  recording  stylus,  in  order  that  it  may  certainly 
out  through  the  depth  of  the  waxlike  material,  must  be  en¬ 
gaged  with  considerable  friction  against  the  foundation  on 
which  the  wax  is  carried,  thereby  offering  unnecessary  re¬ 
sistance  to  the  vibration  of  the  stylus,  and  second,  because 
the  stylus, being  unprovided  with  outting  edges, in  its  vibra 
tions  merely  displaced  or  compressed  the  waxlike  material 
in  the  formation  of  the  groove,  instead  of  cleanly  cutting- 
it. 

The  object  of  my  invention  is  to  provide  improve- 
lents  in  the  art  of  making  records  of  this  kind  and  by  whioh 
Ithe  resulting  records  will  he  more  perfect  and  capable  of 
nore  accurate  reproduction  than  records  of  the  kind  as 
heretofore  made.  As  a  result  of  the  improvements,  I  secure 
i  new  commercial  article  of  manufacture,  to  wit,  an  original 
-ecord  surfaoe  containing  a .cleanly-out  sinuous  spiral  reo- 
>rd  groove, presenting  preferably  in  cross-section  the  arc  of 
?.  circle,  and  whioh  is  aoourately  representative  of  the 
original  sounds,  and  which  record  can  be  used  for  direct  re¬ 
duction  or  as  a  master  from  which  a  matrix  can  be  formed 
’or  producing  duplicates.  I  have  embodied  claims  on  this 
lew  reoord  in  an  application  filed  on  even  date  herewith. 

The  present  invention  resides  principally  in  the 
■ormation  of  the  sinuous  reoord  groove  by  cleanly  outting 
he  material  coincident  therewith,  so  as  to  thereby  remove 
ore  or  less  continuous  shavings  or.ohips  of  the  material, 

0  distinguished  from  the  operations  now  performed,  wherein 
material  is  merely  compressed  or  orowded  to  one  side  or  the- 


other  of  the  normal  or  medial  line  of  the  recording  stylus, 
i.  e. ,  the  line  which  the  recording  stylus  would  traverse 
if  uninfluenced  by  the  vibratory  movements  of  the  diaphragm. 
The  invention  also  preferably  further  resides  in  the  pre¬ 
liminary  formation  in  the  recording  surface  of  a  Bhallow 
spiral  groove  formed  by  the  action  of  a  grooving  tool  which 
precedes  the  recording  stylus,  She  spiral  groove  in  ques¬ 
tion  being  of  less  depth  and  width  than  the  record  -when 
formed,  '.thereby  the  amount  of  material  which  requires  to  be 
removed  by  the  recording  stylus  is.  somewhat  reduced,  to 
thereby  render  the  latter  more  accurately  responsive  to  the 
ribrations  of  the  diaphragm  and  to  thus  secure  a  record 
that  is  more  nearly  graphically  representative  of  the  sound 
ribrations.  This  feature  of  the  prooess  may,  however,  be 
imitted. 

Any  suitable  apparatus  for  carrying  the  process  into 
offset  nay  be  employed,  but  I  preferably  males  use  of  sound 
recording  apparatus  of  the  type  described  and  claimed  in  my 
application  for  patent  filed  November  8th,  1901t  Serial  No. 
81,534,  of  which  the  present  case  is  a  division. 

In  order  that  the  invention  may  be  better  under¬ 
stood,  attention  is  directed  to  the  accompanying  drawings,' 
forming  a  part  of  this  specification,  and  in  whioh 

Figure  1  is  an  elevation,  partly  in  section,  illus¬ 
trating  a  portion  of  a  recording  apparatus  of  the  type  de¬ 
scribed  in  said  application; 

Figure  2,  a  plan  view  of  the  same; 

Figure  3,  an  enlarged  sectional  view  through  a  rec¬ 
ord,  illustrating  the  grooving  tool  and  the  preferred  form 
of  recording  stylus; 

Figure  4,  a  longitudinal  seotional  view  of  the  re- 
jording  stylus  shown  in  figure  3; 


-3- 


Figure  5,  an  enlarged  plan  of  the  preliminary 
groove  and  record  groove  respectively,  formed  by  the  groov¬ 
ing  and  recording  tools  shown  in  figure  3; 

Figure  6,  a  saotion  on  the  line  6—6  of  figure  5; 

Figure  7,  a  section  on  the  line  7—7  of  figure  5;  on< 

Figure  8,  a  cross-sectional  view,  illustrating  the 
preferred  construction  of  reproducer  for  engagement  with  the 
reoord  groove. 

In  all  of  the  above  views, corresponding  parts  are 
represented  by  the  same  minerals  of  reference. 

A  suitable  rotating  platen  1,  mounted  on  a  vertical 
shaft  3,  carries  a  flat  disklike  record  3  made  preferably 
of  the  usual  waxlike  recording  material  with  a  thiokness  of 
say  one-fourth  inch,  and  which  reoord  is  clamped  to  the 
platen  by  means  of  the  thumbscrew  4.  A  frame  6  connects 
it  one  end  with  the  usual  feed-screw  (not  shown),  and  is  sup- 
3 or ted  at  the  other  end  on  the  usual  traveler-bar  6,  a  latch 
7  being  employed  to  elevate  the  frame  from  the  reoord  when 
desired.  The  frame  5  is  formed  with  an  eye  8  therein,  in 
whioh  is  mounted  the  casing  9  of  the  recorder.  This  casing 
is  pivoted  at  10,  and  its  weight  is  partly  counteracted  by 
a  spring  11,  the  tension  of  whioh  oan  be  regulated  by  an  ad¬ 
justing  screw  12.  The  casing  9  Carries  the  usual  diaphragm 
13,  above  which  is  mounted  the  disk  14  provided  with  a  fun¬ 
nel  16,  the  parts  being  held  in  position  by  the  usual  claus¬ 
ing  ring  16.  The  speaking  tube  (not  shown)  is  carried  with¬ 
in  a  tubular  heok  17,  which  projects  within  the  funnel  18 
md  is  supported  by  a  bracket  18  from  the  frame  5,  wbe  reby 
the  recorder  as  a  whole  will  be  free  to  partake  of  move- 
aent  independently  of  the  speaking  ti&e. 

Extending  downwardly  from  the  oasing  9  is  an  arm 
L9  carrying  a  spring  20.  Connecting  the  diaphragm  13  with 
laid  spring  Is  a  bell-crank  lever  21  and  links  22.  The 


spring  20  is  normally  under  tension,  so  as  to  exert  stress 
upon  the  diaphraga  13,  to  thereby  prevent  lOBt  motion  in 
the  connections  between  the  diaphragm  and  said  spring.  At 
the  free  end  of  the  spring  20  is  a  socket  23  arranged  pref¬ 
erably  at  an  angle  to  the  surface  of  the  record  3,  as  shown 
in  figure  3,  and  said  socket  receives  the  shank  of  the  re¬ 
cording  tool  24. 

The  preferable  form  of  recording  tool  1b  that  il¬ 
lustrated,  the  tool  being  provided  with  a  curved  cutting 
edge  25,  with  a  reduced  ne.ok  26  behind  the  cutting  edge  and 
with  a  concaved  forward  edge  27,  which  increases  the  sharp¬ 
ness  of  the  cutting  edge.  'J?he  cutting  edge  25  Bhould  at 
least  extend  coincidently  with  tho  bottom  and  sides  of  the 
recording  tool,  and  preferably  said  outting  edge  extends 
completely  around  the  forward  extremity  of  the  outting  tool, 
in  order  that  the  latter  my  be  turned  when  worn  to  present 
new  outting  surfaces.  Shis  recording  tool  may  be  made  of 
the  usual  sapphire  or  other  jewel,  or  of  hardened  steel. 

The  preferred  apparatus  for  carrying  my 
process  into  effect  also  contemplates  a  socket  28  oarried 
by  the  casing  9  of  the  recorder,  which  socket  sustains  a 
grooving  tool  29  similar  to  an  ordinary  phonographic  reoord- 
sr  and  which  forms  a  relatively  shallow  and  narrow  groove 
Ln  advance  of  the  recorder,  in  order  that  the  material  which 
aust  be  removed  by  the  latter  will  be  reduoed  to  a  minimum, 
[his  grooving  tool  29  forms  a  groove  in  the  reoording  sur- 
Ehoe  3  corresponding  with  the  medial  or  normal  line  of  out 
>f  the  reoording  devioe,  so  that  tho  latter -in  v  Jvibrating 
rill  remove  the  material  by  a  outting  action  to  one  side 
)r*  the  other  of  said  groove. 

In  operation,  the  reoording  surface  3  is  rotated 
md  the  reoording  stylus  and  grooving  tool  29  (if  used)  are 
:  loved  radially  with  respect  to  said  surface,  so  that  said 


-5- 


tools  will  out  a  spiral  groove  therein.  If,  now,  the  dia¬ 
phragm  13  is  vibrated  by  sound  waves ,  the  cutting  recorder 
will  be  vibrated  to  cleanly  cut  the  material  to  the  proper 
depth  and  on  either  side  of  the  shallow  and  narrow  groove 
preliminarily  formed  by  the  grooving  tool  29.  This  eff eot 
is  very  clearly  illustrated  in  figure  5,  in  which  30  repre¬ 
sents  the  groove  formed  by  the  grooving  tool  and  31  repre¬ 
sents  the  record  groove  whioh  is  oleariLy  cut  by  the  out- 
ting  recorder.  Reference  to  figures  6  and  ?  respectively 
indicates  the  relative  depth  and  width  of  these  groove's. 
After  the  record  is  formed,  it  may  be  engaged  by  a  spherical 
reproducing  device  32,  preferably  of  the  type  which  I  de¬ 
scribe  and  claim  in  my  application  for  Letters  Patent  f  iled 
November  8th,  1901,  and  numbered  serially  81,535,  or  said 
record  may  be  used  as  a  master  from  which  a  matrix  oan  be 
made  by  known  prooesseB  and  duplioate  records  secured  there¬ 
from  in  any  suitable  way. 

In  practioe,  the  weight  of  the  recording  devices 
oompriBing  the  partB  sustained  from  the  pivot  10  causes  the 
cutting  reoorder  to  engage  always  to  the  proper  depth  in 
the  reoording  material,  so  that  any  variations  in  the  verti¬ 
cal  thiokness  of  that  material, due  to  imperfections  in  its 
manufacture  or  to  warping  or  distortion  arising  from  any 
causa,  will  not  affect  the  depth  of  the  out,  since  the  re¬ 
corder  will  be  free  to  rise  and  fall,  to  thereby  accommodate 
such  variations. 

By  thus  making  a  record  as  explained,  the  friction 
resisting  the  vibration  of  the  reoorder  is  reduced  to  a 
minimum,  first,  beoause  the  recorder  is  not  required  to  he 
engaged  entirely  through  the  reoording  material,  as  with  the 
processes  now  in  vogue  for  making  these  reoords,  and  second, 
beoause  the  reoorder  is  provided  with  a  outting  edge  whioh 
oleanly  outs  the  waxlike  material  of  the  record,  instead  of 


srowding  or  aompreosing  it  to  one  side,  a3  with  apparatus  of 
the  type  at  present  in  use. 

Having  now  described  ray  invention,  what  I  claim  as 
lew  and  desire  to  secure  hy  letters  Patent  is  os  follows :- 

1.  The  process  of  making  a  graphic  record  repre¬ 
sentative  of  sounds,  which  consists  in  engaging  a  cutting 
bool  with  a  record  surface,  in  subjecting  the  cutting  tool 
to  the  influence  of  sound  -waves,  whereby  it  will  be  caused 
to  be  vibrated  in  a  plane  parallel  to  and  within  said  sur¬ 
face,  and  in  effecting  a  relative  movement  of  the  surfaoe 
with  respeot  to  said  cutting  tool,  whereby  a  sinuous  record 
groove  will  be  oleanly  out  in  said  surfaoe  and  the  material 
will  be  completely  removed  by  the  cutting  tool  in  the  line 
of  its  path,  substantially  as  and  for  the  purpose  Bet  forth. 

2.  The  process  of  making  a  graphic  record  repre¬ 
sentative  of  sounds,  which  oonsists  in  engaging  a  outting 
tool  partially  within  but  not  through  a  record  surface,  in 
subjecting  the  cutting  tool  to  the  influence  of  sound  waves, 
whereby  it  will  be  caused  to  be  vibrated  in  a  plane  parallel 
to  and  within  said  surfaoe,  and  in  effecting  a  relative  move¬ 
ment  of  the  surface  with  respect  to  said  outting  tool,  where¬ 
by  a  sinuouB  record  groove  will  be  oleanly  cut  in  said  sur¬ 
faoe  and  the  material  will  be  completely  removed  by  the  cut¬ 
ting  tool  in  the  line  of  its  path,  substantially  as  and  for 
the  purposes  set  forth. 

3.  The  process  of  making  a  graphic  record  represen 
tatlve  of  sounds,  which  consists  in  oleanly  outting  in  a 
waxlike  blank  a  sinuous  sound  wave,  substantially  as  set 
forth. 

4.  The  prooess  of  making  a  graphic  record  repre¬ 
sentative  of  sounds ,  which  oonsists  in  oleanly  outting  in  a 
waxlike  blank  a  sinuous  sound  wave  -presenting. :  a  aurved 

-7- 


oross-Beotiori  and  of  uniform  depth  and  width  throughout, 
substantially  as  Bet  forth. 


of  making  a  graphio  record  repre¬ 


blank  aiid  in  forming  in  lino  with  said  groove  a  deeper  sinu- 
oub  record  groove,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

jT^  Jit  The  process  of  making  a  graphio  record  repre¬ 
sentative  of  sounds,  consisting  in  cutting  a  groove  in  a 
blank  and  in  outting  in  line  with  said  groove  a  deeper  sin¬ 
uous  reoord  groove,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

4  JK  The  process  of  making  a  graphio  reoord  repre¬ 
sentative  of  sounds,  which  oonBietB  in  engaging  a  grooving 
tool  within  a  recording  surface,  in  engaging  a  recording 
stylus  with  said  surface  in  line  with  said  grooving  tool 
but  to  a  grsater  depth  and  width  than  said  tool,  in  subject¬ 
ing  the  recording  stylus  to  the  effeot  of  Bound  waves, 
whereby  it  will  be  vibrated  in  a  plane  parallel  to  the  re¬ 


oord  surface,  and  in  effecting  s 


slative  movement  of  said 


surface  with  respect  to  said  grooving  tool  and  recording 
stylus,  whereby  the  grooving  tool  will  out  a  shallow  and 
narrow  groove  in  said  surface  in  advance  of  the  recording 
stylus,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


3  SPECIFICATION  SIGNED  AND  WITNESSED  THIS 


Oath. 

State  of 

£011111?  of 

T  H  0  M  A  B  A.  3  B  I  S  0  N  ,  the  above-named 

PETITIONER,  BEING  DULY  SWORN,  DEPOSES  AND  SAYS  THAT  HE  IS  A  OltiSSOn 

OF  THE  United  States  and  a  resident  of  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange , 
In  the  County  of  Bsbox  and  State  of  Hew  Jersey j 

THAT  HE  VERILY  BELIEVES  HIMSELF  TO  BE  THE  ORIGINAL,  FIRST  AND  SOLE  INVENTOR 

OF  THE  iJiPROVmara  IN  PROCESSES  OS’  MAKING  SOUND  RECORDS 

DESCRIBED  AND  CLAIMED  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION;  THAT  HE  DOES  NOT 
KNOW  AND  DOES  NOT  BELIEVE  THAT  THE  SAME  WAS  EVER  KNOWN  OR  USED  BEFORE 
'  HIS  INVENTION  OR  DISCOVERY  THEREOF;  OR  PATENTED  OR  DESCRIBED  IN  ANY 
PRINTED  PUBLICATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA  OR  ANY  FOREIGN  COUNTRY 
BEFORE  HIS  INVENTION  OR  DISCOVERY  THEREOF,  OR  MORE  THAN  TWO  YEARS  PRIOR 
TO  THIS  APPLICATION;  OR  IN  PUBLIC  USE  OR  ON  SALE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  FOR 
MORE  THAN  TWO  YEARS  PRIOR  TO  THIS  APPLICATION,  AND  THAT  NO  APPLICATION 
FOR  FOREIGN  PATENT  HAS  BEEN  FILED  BY  HIM  OR  HIS  LEGAL  REPRESENTATIVES  OR 


;  •  ,  ■ 

LL^_  Jtsr*4'  (&v  /  &  9J 

. ~'*~ '  CC 

Sxjy*  '*  -' 


■  7lwi#t*>  )  -  -  ,  .  ■ 

(w  _  /  V  ;  ia->.  L  t^^y  C-iUui 

i:^L  fX?  /^Wl-  ,%“~\ 

'  /  y,  ^  «*«*.*  <W!-^ •  O 

j.  '-vw  -Vt-D  ^'Uut^<  ,  -A.  Cm*-CC'Vv-V^>  f,|/'  '  a 

'•;.'^rr*  - 

:  *«.**  ^  _, 

4  ^  -  «"*  i  ~  V-  -  ~rL7r 

\-^a^-  J'i ,  &c~t-  ^  V';-  “  ‘  "*' 

■■  eu~  eu  -Ji ,0^^  •  "  'tuisi**  — 

I't^t-tl  3  I  -S’  -  '-’r^o  ^  .■■£*■  A 

&*«,  <U^  3  4-<fo-  */-  ^ 

JU*.  i  27 

ev  -W^fc^L'.«  .■•***' 

rU*~»-  ,..■■■ 


''•  if?  .  <^*" 


7/c^U  ' 


;  7lu.  5^  ^  ^ 

£  "72L,  ^  — ■  '■<  v  * 

"£  ^  - 

hu~*  »-  - - 3  ^  •f 

f~)  ^‘-  “‘  /*t*^'#fcJ  ^ 

-./.*.  <f.  jr-if  *<  r*~~  r~-'  ~ 


a^L,-  ^/~«C 


j,  p, 


W-  ^  -i  2t— — <>  '-— 

— r- - - — /  nu.  •*-*: 


-/-  T/L,  ">  ^  ~ /4-r-  "  ^ 

^  /X— 7  ■/•^—  ^  __  .,r~~  .  3  ?-  */. 

tv.^uu-1  ■*.**-■  ^  *■■■ 

y  ,  ^  ^  ^ 


a.  ~~Cv-*'- 


«W,..^.>  *..  *~nC.  ^ 

~6r  <*.  c«i^(  ^  *-®  A~  *''— 

I  ‘HO^t4  *■>  Ar-H^t  , 


iU'~.*>*  '"*  "■  *■  *; *■*<;* 


^  'A.?  irfrA^  vJ  -  «-n-'  » 

::^  .  >  ^  v ;  iu/^^-o  ~ *°  *“ 


<_ ;  ?C_ 
-■</«__ 


I  ,L  •  ■&-?  *  4./«~>yy  “A*"  ^  -; 

^IZZ^M^.  ii  *'*•  >-/■  '*>  "“’  ~~  .  ;| 

'•/£-  v.  .'  -f-  •*_•*-.  4  -.;| 

l<u-»  —  <-* - ______^'l 


[  CU  5^/'“-' 

\'ju  Ytu~-~:»^~*~  V  -~~»  e<w"  '"*•■ 

[  tu^/^a  <  ^  ^ 

i  "  .  /  ,  ;7_,t  '/£jiJ<*~''-‘  / 

!  *1*.  /i^Ux  *"<^-  ^  _ x 

-  .  x  ,  .  l_j-u<~^i.  'Z'6—^C 

r  ^4_x  -zr  ^*~'~ 

\.  fo  \iU*~£r~-**--  ~-  }y~~ 

■  7  U  b  ~  C/  v£  sL*^ 

I  .  *■"»  Yh^~*+  •^~  ? J 

!:/  \  >  4^  ~  ~ — 

I  ^  ^-^3^ 

;  js  4«^w 

!':/,.  <?.  ~>J'-^x  W^  ~  y 

y. ,, ,.,  _  x.  /w.  /*'.**. •  ‘•/^ 

w«~  A-  ~—  ^ 

\jJc~m~J4  ~M-  h  *~T5~. 

:  >  x  _  J.  S  ..  .  ,t  W< 

:  ’T^UV'*- 


j:  iCi**-'  £-U'^w 


//w-w^x.  (  /.  7  ■  - j 

—  .'■'■  '  *•-  •/  i 

w  /-•'A  ; 

:oL*h*~~  ,  A:  *A~  ^  ^  —  ~~.-i 

^  *c^fj*~:  *>  N^'i 


iiAVs^v  .x,  X 


- /id-  *-tf~u-'£- 

/>  1 ,  € ,  ^6  -  ij  .— 

""*  *  *'*^'*1,  Ufi.$.*A*.  (  ,  £■— ^ 

^ —  .:••• 

J5u~~  ^ 

Lviwj  **~>  ^■;rru^^  "" 

1-5-  '*aCfc .  ?  ^  ^  - 3  *  ^  ^ 

|>i.  ^  ^ 

i  <*»  *-<4+-  «-*-  ^-.•*-^—  <a  A- 

77-  -  '  ^  <s3w^w*  <*~*~-*~  ~ 

,  -  ,  ’,  ■  ^  *T7  "’~^' 

;  /iLXUJD  >^»-!  c^£r-t-c.c  <5-^ *~o-c*~~-~*p  — 

/4L«>  *  *—  /5c^tH) 

'  f  1/  ,  ft-*-**  , 

;  to-ri^d  -7L^u*-a  "^O 

i1  ^  . 


...  *>u^  a  SH-ui  iL~r'tn«~~  /- 

/>.?■£.  V£  -  v  <? 

' tjf.  •  $£**■*?,  <s5S^-*u~*C  ✓'i*~ 


—  ex 


X 

j  rLcs/ic  'hcc~c~ 


£t-M »  /^ '  -' 


■6  .  <r<3  .J-/  ^<^- 


:  k  ^  ^  “  *% 

-tU.^  -wo  Hr-"  ...  ; 


United  States  Patent  Office, 


.  Thomas  A*  J5dison, 

Caro  Dyer,i3dinonda  &  Dyer,  f 

#31  iraaaau  Street,  I 

Hew  Yorl;,lT.Y.  I 

Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER 


».C.,  July  9,1802VC^^TT 

u.  s.  PATENT  OFFie^i 

JUL  8  1902  r 

Bailed. 


Claims  1  to  4  Inclusive,  are  rejected  for  want  of 
patentable  novelty  in  view  of  the  patent  of  Jones  .December  10, 
1901,  #688,739,  Duplicating  Devicoe,  and  Adama-Fandall’ a  Bnfjlish 
Patent  #1058  of  1889  (Qranhnnhonaal.- 

Claim8  5  to  7  inclusive,  are  rejected  for  mnt  of 
patentable  Invention  in  view  of  the  patents  of  Heysineer, November 
11,1690,  ^-#440,155,  (Grqphonhones)  and  Berliner, December  17,1901, 
#689,350,  (Oraphophono-l’ablete), 


Case  No.,/<f:..Paper  No . if... 


r 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON 

PROCESS  OP  MAKING  SOUND  RECOKDS 

PILED  JUNE  4,  1902 

SERIAL  NUMBER  110,159 

ROOK  HUMBER  219. 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS, 

Sir: 

Reconsideration  of  the  claims  is  respectfully  re¬ 
quested.  The  first  four  olaims  are  limited  to  the  formation 
of  a  sinuous  record  groove  "by  a  true  cutting  action. 

So  far  as  the  British  patent  to  Adams-Eandall  is 
concerned,  it  refers  only  to  the  employment  of  a  "traoer  or  ! 
traveller",  which  is  illustrated  in  Figure  43  as  a  common  j 

wire.  The  patent  does  not  describe  any  reoorder  having  i 

i 

true  cutting  edges,  nor  does  it  refer  to  the  out ting  of  a  | 
sinuous  record  groove. 


So  far  as  the  patent  to  Jones  ,is  concerned,  it  is 
true  that  the  specification  refers  to  the  formation  of  a 
sinuous  groove  by  "cutting  or  engraving",  but  immediately 
before  this  statement  the  patent  soys  that  the  record  is  made 
"in  a  well  known  manner".  At  the  date  of  the  Jones  applica¬ 
tion  the  well  known  manner  of  making  sinuous  grooved  records 
was  by  means  of  a  needle-like  reoorder,  and  this  must  be  the 
prooess  which  Jones  had  in  mind.  Furthermore,  in  his  draw¬ 
ing  (Pig.  1)  Jones  shows  an  ordinary  recording  needle,  which 
is  not  provided  with  cutting  edges. 


Case  No.^£paper  No..s& 


A  somewhat  analogous  situation  was  presented  during 
I  the  pendency  of  the  application  for  Edison' b  patent  Ho. 
393,967,  against  which  the  Bell  &  Taint er  patent  No.  341,214 
was  oited.  In  that  patent  Bell  Sr.  Tainter  refer  to.  and  claim 
the  engraving  or  outting  of  the  record  in  a  wax-like  material. 
Edison,  however,  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  opera¬ 
tion  performed  by  Bell  &  Tainter  was  not  a  true  cutting  ac¬ 
tion,  but  was  a  scraping  effect,  and  in  view  of  this  faot 
broad  claims  were  allowed  in  the  Edison  patent  on  the  outting 
of  the  record  “in  contradistinction  to  the  formation  of  suoh 
sound  records  by  a  scraping  action.  “  We  submit  that  in'  the  i 
present  case  the  Jones  patent  does  not  bear  any  oloser  anal-: 
ogy  to  Edison's  present  invention  than  did  the  Bell  &  Tainter 
patent  approximate  the  invention  of  the  prior  Edison  patent.  : 

So  far  as  the  patent  to  Heysinger  is  concerned,  we  1 
distinguish  the  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh  claims  therefrom 
in  the  following  respects:  With  applicant's  invention  the 
preliminary  groove  is  formed  for  the  purpose  of  reducing  the  ; 
work  on  tho  cutting  recorder,  whereas  with  the  Heysinger  pat-' 
ent  tho  preliminary  groove  is  formed  for  the  purpose  of  mere¬ 
ly  guiding  tho  indenting  recorder  and  without  in  any  way  pro¬ 
ducing  the  work  performed  in  the  latter.  With  applicant's 
invention  the  record  groove  is  sinuous,  whereas  with  the  Hey¬ 
singer  patent  the  record  groove  is  truly  spiral.  With  ap¬ 
plicant’s  invention  the  record  groove  is  out,  whereas  with 
the  Heysinger  patent  the  record  groove  is  indented.  Finally, 
with  applicant's  invention  the  record  groove  is  wider  than 
the  preliminary  groove,  whereas  in  tfye  Heysinger  patent  the 
record  groove  is  narrower . than  the  preliminary  groove. 

2*  Case  Paper  No., 


So  far  as  the  Berliner  patent  is  concerned,  we  do 
not  regard  it  as  anticipating  these  claims,  for  the  follow¬ 
ing  reasons:  With  applicant's  invention  the  record  groove 

is  deeper  than  the  preliminary  groove,  whereas  with  the  Ber¬ 
liner  patent  the  record  groove  is  shallower  than  the  prelim¬ 
inary  groove,  Bince,  as  shown  in  Figure  2,  the  preliminary 
groove  is  not  obliterated  during  the  formation  of  the  record 
groove.  With  applicant's  invention  the  record  groove  is 
cut  in  line  with  the  preliminary  groove,  whereas  with  the 
Berliner  patent  the  record  groove  is  formed  by  means  of  the 
ordinary  needle-like  stylus,  which  merely  shapes  or  indents 
the  material,  without  cutting  it. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  we  hope  that  the 
claims  may  be  allowed. 

Very  respectfully, 


Attorneys  for  Edit 


United  States  Patent  Office;.'! 


’atent  Office,^  "••'"■kjj  . 

iH.NGTON.  D.  c..  %ivAuC.,,;' 28f  1903. 


Care  Oyer,  Bdmonds  and  Dyer, 
81  nasaau  St.,  N.  7.  City. 


U.  S.  PAT^T  OFFICE, 


. .  "  1  MAILED.  I 

Please  fijul' below  a  communication  from  tile  EXAMINER  in  charge  of '  your  application-,. 

tor  Process  of  Making  Sound  rs  cords,  filed  June  4,  1908,  Ho.  110, 


■R  Ji.astL. . 


This  action  is  in  response  to  the  amendment  filed  the  7tli. 
lnat.  : 

Applicant  iebellevad^iobe  In  error  In  stating  that 
the  pat ont  of  5 Adama-Randall  doee  not  dssbrlbs  a  "but*  record. 

.  ga#  Paragraph  beginning  line  35j  page  9 'Of  SAid^pat ent’ " ^adt '  Wee' 
aleo  paragraph  beginning-  line  48  same  page  autitngwetylus 

Wth  a  "knife  edge*.  As  to  whether  Adoma-Raiidall  urnkba  a  alnuoue 
record  groove  tho  device  illustrated  in  Pig.  43  of  hla  patent 
cannot  make  other  than  a  sinuous  record  groove  aa  ahoen  in  s*lg.  44. 

In  view  of  thla  explanation  of  the  examiner* a  opinion 
of  the  dlacloauro  In  the  Adama-Randall  patent  there  appears  to 
be  no  reason  for  departing  from  the  grounds  at  rejection  recited 
In  the  last  official  letter  with  regard  to  claims  1  to  4  and  their 
'  rejection  Is  repeated.  c  „  „>xv.  .  _ .  ,  ^ 

With  regard  to, claims  3  to  7  It  may  be  stated  that  both 
Berliner  and  Hey  singer  have  fonaed  preliminary  grooves  In  order 
to  lessen  the  work  of  the' recording  stylus.  Applloant  simply  ax- 
tkds  the  idea  in  Hey  singer  and  Berliner,  and  while  Hey  singer  has 
a  prepared  groove  of  less  depth  than  the  record  groove,  and  Bor- 

^ase  Na.y^Paper  '  V 


page  2  of  Edisoni 


liner  haa  a  prepared  groove  of  less  width  than  the  record  groove 
,  appliotmt  haa  a  prepared  groove  of  leee  depth  and  less  width 
than  the  after  made  record  groove. 

It  is  held  that  this  change  made  by  applicant  does  not 
constitute  invention  in  view  of  the  patent e  cited «  and  claime 
5  to  7  are  again  rejected. 


Case  Ho,„. Paper  No.^?.. 


ibrOMAS  A.  EDISON 
'ROOESS  03?  MAKING  SOUND  RECORDS 
[(PILED  ,TUN.E  4,  1902 
SERIAL  NO.  110,159 


ROOM  NO.  219. 


!I[ON.  COMMISSIONER  OE  PATENTS, 

SIR: 

Please  amend  by  erasing  claim  5  and 
y  renumbering  the  remaining  claims. 

V/e  note  that  the  Examiner  still  rejects  the  first 
our  claims  on  the  British  patent  to  Adams -Randall,  and  sup- 
orts  his  contention  that  this  patent  describes  a  "cutVecord 
eferences  to  page  9  of  the  specification  thereof. 

Concerning  this  patent,  we  contend:-  E.irst,  that 
jit  describes  and  illustrates  mere  details  relating  to  the 
old  Edison  indenting  tin-foil  phonograph;  second,  that  it 
does  not  describe  or  illustrate  the  cutting  of  a  phonograph 
record  in  'the  sense  that  the  formation  of  these  records  is 
ow  understood;  third,  that  it  does  not  describe  the  outting 
f  a  sinuous -groove  record,  nor  does  it  describe  or  show 
pparatus  which  could  possibly  be  used  for  that  purpose;  and 
ourth,  that  it  is  blind,  obscure  and  totally  lacking  in  any 
isclosure  which  by  any  possible  straining  of  language  can 
e  regarded  as  the  equivalent  of  applicant's  invention. 

In  describing  the  first,  and  probably  preferred  form 
>f  apparatus,  Bhown  in  figures  1  and  9,  the  specification  of 
.he  patent  refers  to  the  "recording  pen  or  style  23"  (p.  5 
..ine  1).  With  this  apparatus,  a  phonographic  record  would 
1  e  formed,  since  the  pen  or  style  vibrates  up  and  down  with 
regard  to  the  recording  surfaoe,  and  the  apparatus  could  not 
3  ossibly  be  used  to  make  a  record  with  a  Binuous  groove. 

■  k0  specification  then  describes  the  modified  form  of  appara- 

Casc  No./<£lPaper  i 


tun  shown  in  figures  10  and  11,  and  refers  to  "a  suitable 
recording  or  reproducing  device,  —  similar  to  that  shown  in 
Fig.  S3,  or  Fig.  35,  or  Fig.  36".  These  recording  or  re¬ 
producing  devices  are  shown  on  sheet  4,  and  in  every  case  a 
pointed  stylus  is  illustrated,  identically  like  the  indent¬ 
ing  needle  of  the  old  tin-foil  phonograph.  Such  a  pointed 
stylus  is  in  no  sense  a  cutting  tool,  nor  .is  it  capable  of 
performing  a  cutting  operation.  A  stylus  of  that  kind  obvi¬ 
ously  could  not  be  employed  for  cutting  a  sinuous  record 
groove,  as  applicant  describes.  So  far  as  the  modifica¬ 
tion  Shown  in  figures  12  and  13  is  concerned,  no  reference 
whatever  is  made  in  the  specification  to  the  form  of  record¬ 
ing  stylus  used.  With  all  the  modifications  illustrated 
on  sheet  3,  no  reference  in  the  specification  is  made  to  the 
recorder  except  to  say  that  the  latter  is  provided  with  guid¬ 
ing  rollers  53,  but  in  figures  21  and  22  the  recorder  is 
clearly  shorn  as  a  needle  or  wire,  as  with  the  old  tin-foil 
phonograph. _  Concerning  the  modifications  shown  in  figure 
31  (sheet  2)  and  in  figures  32  to  41  (sheet  5),  no  reference 
whatever  is  made  to  the  form  of  recorder  used.  In  desoribl 
the  modification  illustrated  in  figures  45  and  46  (sheet  6), 
the  specification  refers, generally, to  a  recorder,  but  tho 
drawing  very  clearly  illustrates  this  recorder  as  a  needle 
or  wire.  The  specification  in  describing  the  operation  of 
this  device  says  that  "a  record  is  made  in  a  spiral  line" 

(p.  7,  line  13).  Obviously,  the  waking  of  a  reoord  is  a 
very  much  broader  expression  than  the  cutting  of  a  record. 

Seme  light  is  thrown  on  the  construction  of  the  re¬ 
corder  on  page  7  of  the  specification,  in  describing  the  de¬ 
vices  shown  in  figures  32  to  37.  Here  the  recorder  is  de¬ 
scribed  as  "a  light  rod  80".  The  specification  says:- 
"When  luted  as  a  recorder,  motion  la  given  to  the  diaphragm 


ng 


*  *  *  ,  and  tills  motion  Is  Imparted  to  the  rod, In 

suoh  manner  that  a  record  of  the  vibrations  of  87  (the  dia¬ 
phragm)  can  he  recorded  in  suitable  material.  When  used 
as  a  reproducer,  the  device  is  passed  over  the  record  in 
the  recording  mat  erica  and  motion  is  thereby  given  to  the 
rod  or  pen  which  is  imparted  to  the  diaphragm"  (p.  7,  lines 
35—41).  It  is  thus  clear  that  the  stylus  is  used  both 
for  recording  and  reproducing,  exactly  like  the  needle  of 
the  old  tin-foil  phonograph.  The  rodlike  stylus  cannot, 
therefore,  be  provided  with  cutting  edges,  beoRuse  if  it 
were  it  could  not  be  used  for  reproducing.  Furthermore,  it 
is  not  described  as  being  provided  with  cutting  edges,  and 
its  operation  is  not  referred  to  as  a  cutting  action.  Fi¬ 
nally,  in  the  drawings  it  1b  clearly  shown  as  a  needle  or 
sire. 


The"reoording  pen  or  style  112"  (p.  8,  line  2) 
shown  in  figure  3B  (Bheet  4)  is  also  a  needle,  and  in  line 
3  i't  is  referred  to  as  a  “rod,  pen  or  style". 

In  describing  the  modification  shown  in  figure  42 
(sheet  5),  the  specification  refers  to  the  "tracer  or  trav¬ 
eller  23"  (p.  8,  line  19),  and  further  on  (line  25)  to  "the 
recording  p_olntH.  This  is  clearly  not  a  cutting  tool,  nor 
me  capable  of  performing  a  cutting  operation. 

All  of  the  devices  so  far  referred  to  in  the  Adams - 
Sandal  1  patent  are  obviously  phonographic  apparatus,  wherein 
the  stylus  is  vibrated  up  and  down  with  respect  to  the  sur¬ 


face.  They  have  no  bearing  whatever  on  the  present  oase, 
mt  have  been  referred  to  in  order  to  show  that  even  with 


-hat  type  of  devtoe  a  cutting  reoorder  1b  not  employed, 
tie  only  phonautographic  or  sinuous -groove  apparatus  is  shown 
.n  figures  43  and  44,  in  descrlbiig  whioh  the  stylus  is  re- 
:  'erred  to  as  "a  recording  or  reproducing  tracer  or  traveller" 
p.  8,  lines  35 — 36),  whioh  is  later  on  specifically  descried 


I - 


an  a  "rod  141"  (line  37). 

j  After  referring  to  various  forms  of  recording  sur- 

faoes  for  use  with  "this  form  of  recording  apparatus,  by 
which  the  sound  vibrations  are  graphically  recorded",  the 
patentee  describes  the  reoord  as  being  "graphically  traced, 
at  a  minimus  resistance”  (p.  9,  line  8). 

In  describing  the  operation  of  the  several  devices 
illustrated  in  his  patent,  Adams -Randall  states  that  "sound! 
made  or  uttered  at  the  mouthpiece  are  reoorded  by  means  of 


the  style  or  pen,  in  the  recording  material  by  a  line  of  in¬ 
dentations  or  graphically,  as  and  in  the  manners  well  known" 
(p.  9,  lines  16 — 18).  In  reproducing,  "the  reoording  nen 

or  traveller,  following  in_the  lines  of  the  reoord,  is  vi¬ 
brated"  (p.  9, lines  36,  37),  "thus  converting  the  recorder 
into  a  reproducer"  (lines  39,  30).  Thus  it  will  be  seen 

that  the  patentee  distinguishes  the  two  types  of  apparatus 

described  in  his  patent,  as  those  adapted,  first,  to  fom  a 
or  "graphically"  (phonautographically) 
reoord  by  "a  line  of  .indentations"  '  (phonographically) *  b£t 

the  making  of  these  records  is  referred  to  as  being  well- 
known.  Apparently  Adams -Randall,  at  the  time  of  taking  out 
his  patent,  knew  only  of  the  original  tin-foil  phonograph, 
as  a  noedlolike  reo order  is  always  shown,  and  that  recorder 
is  described  as  being  used  as  a  reproducer  for  securing  re¬ 


productions.  The  reoorder  oannot  be  provided  with  cutting 
edges,  because  in  that  case  it  could  not  be  used  as  a  repro¬ 
ducer.  It  is  true  that  in  describing  the  devioe  shown  in 
figure  35,  on  page  9,  the  specification  states  that  "the  reo¬ 
ord  will  be  more  positively,  and  deeply  out,  engraved  or 
made  In  the  material"  (lines  36,  37),  and  this  we  understand 
is  one  of  the  statements  on  which  the  Kjceminer  baseB  his 
opinion  that  Adaras-Randall  describes  a  "out"  reoord.  It  is 
to  he  observed,  however,  that  the  reoorder  of  figure  35  ie 


•4- 


previously  referred  to  in  the  specif ication  rb  a  rod,  and  no 
outting  edges  are  desorlbed.  Apparently,  the  patentee  usod 
the  terms  "cutting ",  "engraving "  and  "making"  synonymously. 

At  any  rate,  even  considering  that  a  cutting  action  is  re¬ 
ferred  to  and  admitting  that  the  specification  describes  and 
the  drawings  show  a  true  cutter,  the  reference  world  still 
not  he  pertinent,  sinoB  the  recorder  of  figure  35  is  a  phono- 
graphic.  devioe,and  :not  a-  phonautoreraphic  or  ninuous-groove 
device.  In  other  words,  so  far  rb  this  reference  is  con¬ 
cerned,  the  Adams-Handall  patent  would  not  he  as  pertinent 
as  any  patent  showing  an  ordinary  phonographio  outting  tool. 

Further  on  the  specification  says  that  good  repro¬ 
ductions  can  he  obtained  from  the  reverse  side  of  the  ^in¬ 
dentations  or  lines  of  the  record"  (p.  9,  lines  45—49),  and 
this  is  especially  true  "if  a  flat,  thin,  sharp  recording 
pen  or  style  having  a  knife  edge  and  much  more  width  than 
thickness  —  a  miniature  ohisel  —  iB  employed"  (p.  9, 
lineB  50,  51).  This  statement  we  understand  offers  the 
Examiner  additional  basis  for  his  opinion  that  Adams-Han¬ 
dall  describes  a  "out"  record.  Chisel-like  recorders  were, 
however,  known  long  prior  to  Adams-Handall,  and  are  described, 
for  example,  in  the  origins.  Bell  and  Tainter  patent.  The 
reference  to  a  chisel-like  recorder  is  made,  it  will  be  ob¬ 
served,  only  in  connection  with  records  formed  of  "indenta¬ 
tions  or  lines",  and  is  not  made  in  connection  with  graphic 
orrphonautographio  records.  It  would  be  probttoly  easy  to 
reproduce  from  the  reverse  side  of  an  original  Edison  tin- 
foil  record  having  indentations,  but  it  would  be  impossible 
without  the  exercise  of  invention  to  reproduce  from  the  re¬ 
verse  side  of  a  graphi'h  orphonautographic- record.  Adams- 
Handall  apparently  recognised  this,  because  he  limits  his 
reference  to  a  chisel-like  recorder  to  an  apparatus  of  the 
-8- 


phonographic  type* 

Sven,  however,  if  we  admit  that  Adams-Randall  de- 

Isorlbes  the  employment  of  a  chisel-like  recorder  for  foming 
a  sinuous-groove  record,  it  is  obvious  that  suoh  a.  recorder 
would  not  perform  a  cutting  action,  since  it  is  not  provided 
with  side  outting  edges.  In  fact,  for  the  formation  of  sutf 
a  reoord,  a  chisel-like  recorder  would  he  inferior  to  a 
needle  reoorder. 

When  the  Adams-Rnndall  patent  in,  therefore,  taken 
as  a  whole,  we  submit  that  it  has  no  bearing  whatever  on  the 
present  case,  and  relates,  in  fact,  to  an  entirely  different 
type  of  apparatus.  It  certainly  cannot  be  argued  that  the 
patent  describes  a  cutting  tool  especially  adapted  for  form¬ 
ing  a  cleanly  out  sinuous  reoord  groove,  or  describes  the 
formation  of  such  a  reoord  groove  as  applicant  specifically 

Iolaims.  In  the  absence  of  a  definite  reference, to  the  in¬ 
vention  which  applicant  is  claiming,  we  submit  that  the  pat¬ 
ent  should  be  withdrawn. 

The  original  fifth  claim  has  been  erased  on  the  theo¬ 
ry  that  as  it  wae  broad,  enough  to  cover  the  formation  of 
the  record  by  a  needlelike  reoorder,  it  was  probably  not 
sufficiently  distinguished  from  the  Berliner  patent  of  reo¬ 
ord. 

So  far  as  the  present  fifth  and  sixth  claims  are  con¬ 
cerned,  they  are  both  limited  to  the  outting  of  the  reoord 
groove,  ar.d  are,  therefore,  subordinate  to  the  first  four 
olaims.  If  the  first  four  claims  are  patentable,  and  we 
submit  with  all  earnestness  that  they  are,  then  the  last  two 
claims  should,  we  believe,  be  allowed  with  them, 

Very  resp.eotf.ully, 

THOMAS  A .  EDISON, 

By _ 

HewYork,  August  38,  1903.  Ills  Attorneys* 


2-200. 


Room  No. _ ?J-7f 

commmifcof'oni  timid  bt'addreiicdff  f  H»  D« 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  d.  c.  8ept.  9,19O2.^'^£0g>vs 

Thomas  A.  JOdicon, 

Care  Dyer,  JMtaonda  ft  Dyer, 


31  Nassau  Stroot, 
Now  Vork,N.Y. 


D.  S.  PATENT  OFFICE, 

SEP  9  1902 
M  AILED. 


Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  applicati 

for  Process  of  Making  Sound-Records ,f lied  June  4,1902, serial 
number  110,169. 


This  aotion  is  in  response  to  tho  amendment  filed 
the  29th  ult  too. 

It  seems  clear  from  a  reading  of  the  file  in  t J»  patent 
of  Jones  citod  that  the  step  of  “cutting  or  engraving*. the  record 
groove  referred  to'  therelnr-contemplates  a  cutting  out  or  removal 
of' the  cut  materlta  by ‘the^  late  ml  .vibration  of  the  style,,  Tiho 
first  four  claims  are  again;rej)octed'in- view  of  the  patents  of-; 
Jones  and  AdamS-Randall  cited. 

Claims  5  and  6  are  rejected  in  view  of  Jones, Adaras- 
Randall,  Berliner  and  Hey8lnger,citod. 


Case  Paper  No,...Y^t.... 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON 

PROCESS  OP  MAKING  SOUND  RECORDS 

I'll®)  JUNE  4,  1903 

SERIAL  NO.  110,159 

ROOM  NO.  319 

HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OR  PATENTS, 

SIR  : - 

We  note  that  the  Examiner,  In  again 
rejecting  the  olaims,  still  adheres  to  the  British  patent 
to  Adams-Randall.  In  our  last  argument  we  oarefully  analy¬ 
zed  this  reference,  and  hoped  at  the  time  that  we  had  con¬ 
vinced  the  Examiner  of  its  entire  irrelevanoy.  We  oan  add 
nothing  to  what  we  have  already  said  in  regard  to  the  pat¬ 
ent,  and  we  request,  therefore,  that  the  Examiner  will  again 
he  kind  enough  to  oonsider  it  in  the  light  of  our  argument. 
Wfe  repeat,  concerning  this  reference,  that  it  relates  only 
to  the  old  indenting  method,  and  does  not  even  show  a  out- 
ting  tool  for  making  a  phonograph  record.  It  oertainly 
does  not  show  such  a  tool  for  making  a  sinuous  groove  reoord. 

Concerning  the  patent  to  Jones,  we  submit  the  fol¬ 
lowing: 

1.  A  oareful  reading  of  the  file  of  the  Jones  pat¬ 
ent  does  not  disclose  any  positive  and  definite  statement  to 
the  effect  that,  in  the  making  of  his  master  reoord,  Jones 
employs  a  true  outting  operation  in  whioh  the  material  is 
aotually  removed.  Jones,  in  faot,  states  that  his  method 
is  that  of  the  Bell  and  Tainter  graphophone  (patent  No. 341,- 
214,  May  4,  1886),  in  whioh  the  formation  of  the  reoord  is 
referred  to  as  "cutting  or  engraving".  This  method  is  re¬ 
ferred  to  by  Jones  in  the  prosecution  of  his  case  as  the 
"engraving  method".  Edison  patent  No.  398,967  of  May  4th 

-."’I"'  1  Use  No../^fpaper  No, 


1888  fully  distinguishes  the  engraving  method  of  the  Bell 


and  Tainter  patent  from  a  true  outting  operation.  In  that 
patent  Edison  said: 

“Heretofore  the  recording  point  used  has  been  oon- 
struoted  so  that  in  forming  the  groove  it  removed  the 
material  by  a  soraping  action.  This  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  advancing  edge  of  the  recording  style 
used  was  perpendicular  to  the  recording  surf&oe  or  re-  . 
ceded  from  the  perpendicular,  the  result  being  a  screw¬ 
ing  rather  than  a  true  outting  of  the  material.  The 
soraping  action  I  have  found  to  be  productive  of  false 
vibrations  which  become  part  of  the  rooord  and  whioh  , 
are  audible  as  soratohing  and  other  foreign  noises  when 
s°u«ds  are  reproduced.  I  have  found  that  this 
difficulty  is  overoome  by  employing  a  recording  point 
made  as  a  true  outting  tool  with  a  outting  edge  in  ad¬ 
vance  of  the  stook  of  the  tool.” 

This  distinction  between  an  engraving  and  a  outting  opera¬ 
tion  was  regarded  by  the  Office  as  sufficient  in  character 


to  warrant  the  allowance  of  a  generic  claim  on  the  latter 
method.  The  first  claim  of  the  Edison  patent  in  (jtuestion 
is  as  follows: 


"The  method  of  recording  sounds  for  reproduction, 
consisting  in  impressing  sound  vibrations  upon  a  cut¬ 
ting  recording  point  and  thereby  outting  in  the  reoord- 
ing  surface  the  record  corresponding  to  the  sound  waves 
in  contradistinction  to  the  formation  of  such' sound 
records  by  a  scraping  aotion. " 

If,  therefore,  the  method  suggested  by  Jones  in  the  proseou- 
tion  of  his  case  is  the  Bell  and  Tainter  method  as  he  says, 
that  method  is  distinguished  from  applicant's  method,  in 
whioh  a  true  outting  operation  is  performed.  Making  this 
assumption,  the  Jones  method  corresponds  with  the  Bell  and 
Tainter  patent,  and  applicant's  method  corresponds  with  his 
former  patent.  If  a  true  outting  operation  for  the  forma¬ 
tion  of  a  phonograph  reoord  was  patentably  distinguished 
from  a  soraping  operation,  then,  we  submit, a  true  outting 
operation  for  the  formation  of  a  sinuous  groove  reoord  should 
be  similarly  distinguished. 

2.  After  all,  the  only  statement  in  the  Jones  pat¬ 
ent  whioh  has  any  bearing  whatever  on  the  present  oase  is 
2 


Case  Paper 


that  the  reoord  groove  is  "out  or  engraved" .  This  state¬ 
ment  however,  as  we  have  before  pointed  out,  ia  prooeded  by 
the  statement  that  the  reoord  is  made  "in  a  well  known  man¬ 
ner".  The  only  known  method  of  making  sinuous  grooved 
records  at  the  date  of  Jones's  application  was  by  means  of 
a  traoing  point,  aB  suggested  by  Berliner.  It  was  not  new 
to  make  suoh  a  reoord  by  either  a  scraping  or  a  outting 
operation,  so  that  so  far  aB  the  patent  itself  is  concern¬ 
ed,  it  is  dear  that  it  cannot  relate  to  anything  other  thanl 
the  Berliner  needlelike  reoorder.  It  seems  very  probable, 
in  view  of  the  proseoution  of  his  oase,  that  Jones  may  have 
contemplated  the  soraping  or  engraving  method  of  the  Bell 
and  Tainter  patent,  but  if  that  is  the  oase,  the  specifica¬ 
tion  of  his  own  patent  is  misleading  in  stating  that  the 
reoord  is  formed  "in  a  well  known  manner".  So  far  as  we 
can  Judge,  the  only  point  of  distinction  that  Jones  had  in 
mind  between  his  process  and  that  of  Berliner  was  that  with 
the  latter  a  traoing  operation  through  a  film  on  an  etohing 
ground  was  performed,  while  with  his  prooess  the  engraving 
tool  (undesoribed  and  unillustratad)  worked  within  the  sur¬ 
face  of  the  recording  material.  In  fact,  if  the  arguments 
presented  by  Jones  during  the  proseoution  of  his  oase  are 
to  be  reconciled  with  the  statement  of  his  patent  that  his 
reoords  are  formed  "in  a  well  known  manner",  it  will  have 
to  be  assumed  that  this  was  the  only  distinction  which  Jones 
sought  to  present  between  his  prooess  and  Berliner's. 

3.  Even  if  it  should  be  admitted  that  Jones,  either 
in  his  patent  or  in  his  arguments  before  the  Patent  Offioe, 
had  a  clear  conoeption  of  the  possibility  of  forming  a  sinu¬ 
ous  reoord  groove  by  a  true  outting  operation,  the  fact  that 
suoh  a  possibility  is  stated  in  his  patent  would  not  make 
the  patent  a  good  reference.  Edison,  in  addition  to  per- 


Cacc  No,./^J5aper  No . 


oeiving  the  possibility  of  making  a  record  in  this  way,  has 
invented  a  new  apparatus  for  its  production,  and  therefore 
must  he  presumed  to  he  the  first  to  actually  secure  the  re¬ 
sult.  Long  prior  to  the  invention  of  the  Bell  telephone, 
Bourseul  had  suggested  the  possibility  of  transmitting  speech 
electrically,  and  he  even  had  a  vague  dream  of  the  means  by 
which  that  could  he  done.  In  sustaining  the  Bell  patent, 
the  Supreme  Court  regarded  these  vague  suggestions  aB  being 
of  so  little  importance  in  the  way  of  anticipation  as  not 
to  require  any  special  consideration  by  them.  We  do  not 
see  how  in  the  present  case  the  equally  vague  suggestions 
of  .Tones  oon  have  any  weight  in  anticipating  claims  drawn 
on  a  specific  process  carried  out  by  the  use  of  new  and  ori¬ 
ginal  apparatus. 

We  hope,  therefore,  that  upon  reconsideration  the 
claims  may  be  allowed,  but  if  this  oannot  be  done,  then  we 
request  that  final  action  be  taken. 

Very  respectfully, 

I  A.  EDISON, 

Attorneys. 


New  York,  September  17,  1902. 


Case  No.../^paper  No . .£ 


United  States  Patent  Office, 


Thomas  A.  Edison  , 

Oar o  By or, Edmonds  &  Dyer, 
#31  llasaau  Street, 
Hew  York,!I.y. 


n 

jujf  C^rJ)/  )g*J 

October  9ipJj9OP,*$s0y' 


U.  S.  PA7EBT  OFFICE, 

OCT  9  1902 

MAILED. 


nicaUon  from  Hut  EXAMINER  in  cha 


for  Process  of  Making  Sound-Records, f.llod  June  4,1908, serial  number 
serial  110,159. 


This  action  is  in  response  to  the  amendment  filed  the 
18th  ultimo. 

In  the  first  place  it  must  be  held  that  the  Boll  and 
Tainter  procoss  of  making  an  original  record  was  a  true  cutting 
process.  In  the  patent  of  Bell  and  Tainter,  May  4,1886,  #341,814, 
page  3,  linos  70-73,  the  patenteo  states  that  "This  leaves  sharp 
cutting  edges  on  both  sides  of  the  tapering  point.  Those  edges 
remove  the  material  in  chips  or  shavings  like  a  plane  or  turning 
tool".  Then  on  page  6,  lines  76  to  74,  the  patentee  states  -"The 
term  cutting  is  herein  employed  to  indicate  an  action  in  which 
the  material  is  removed  in  chips,  shavings,  or  small  pieces,  a3 
in  engraving,  turning  and  the  like,  and  not  merely  displaced. 11 
Those  statements  seam  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  stylus  was  a 
true  cutting  stylus  and  that  the  recording  process  involved  a 
true  cutting  action  and  not  a  scraping  action  as  held  by  applicant. 
This  was  the  well  known  Oraphophono  "system".  The  action  of  the 
examiner  in  granting  patent  #393,967  to  the  present  applicant 
notwithstanding  the  prior  patent  to  Bell  and  Tainter,  is  not 
controlling  in  this  case  whatever  may  have  been  the  reasons  of  the 


Examiner  that  caused  him  to  decide  that  the  matter  claimed  in 
applicant* e  patent  was  patentable  as  stated.  It  having  boon 
estalxL ished  that  Bell  and  Tainter's  prooess  was  a  true  cutting 
process,  it  now  remains  to  construe  tho  meaning  of  tho  term 
"cutting  or  engraving"  in  the  patent  of  Jones  cited.  Tho  expres¬ 
sion  "forming  in  a  well  known  manner"  in  the  patent,  does  not 
negative  the  holding  that  tho  record  is  formed  by  Jones  by  a 
true  cutting  out  or  3having  process,  for  Bell  and  Taintor's  process 
and  applicant's  patented  process  wero  both  true  cutting  processes 
and  these  were  the  wall  known  ways  of  forming  graphophono  records 
for  several  years  prior  to  tho  application  of  Jones  and  in  fact 
tho  only  way  known  to  tho  Examiner  in  which  up  and  down  or  grapho- 
phone  sound  records  had  been  made  for  years  prior  to  the 
Jones  application.  This  Bell  and  Taint  or  process  was  a  part  of 
the  well  known  "graphophone  systoin"  referred  to  by  Jono3,p.  1, 
line  56  to  line  68  and  Jones  states  therein  that  his  process 
differs  therefrom  by  cutting  a  lateral  record  wherein  the 
resistance  to  the  stylus  is  uniform,  wh areas  in  said  patented 
process  the  resistance  to  the  stylus  increases  with  the  depth  of 
the  cut,  etc.  This  cutting  out  process  was  therefore  doubtless 
the  "well  known"  cutting  out  or  shaving  prooess.  Not  only  is  this 
doubtless  true  from  the  evidence  of  surrounding  c Ire  instances, 
and  from  statements  in  the  Jones  patent/  but  what  Jones  said  in 
his  argument  in  the  patented  file,  connected  with  the  prosecution 
of  tho  case  clearly  shows  that  so  far  as  the  cutting  feature  of 
his  process  was  concerned  that  it  was  the  cutting  out  process  of 
Boll  and  Tainter  applied  to  cut  laterally  in  the  plane  of  tho 
surfaoe  of  the  record  instead  of  vertically  in  a  plane  at  angles 
to  the  surface  of  the  record. 

Claims  1  to  4  are  finally  rejeoted  in  view  of  the  patents 
of  Jones  &  AdamB-Randall  cited  and  claims  5  and  6  are  finally 
rejected  in  view  of  the  patents  cited.  ‘  Cues No,/^^.Paper 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON 

PROCESS  OP  MAKING  SOUND  RECORDS 

PILED  JUNE  4,  1902 

SERIAL  NO.  110,159 

ROOM  NO.  219 

HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS, 

SIR  : - 

In  the  above  entitled  application,  we 
hereby  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Primary  Examiner,  who 
on  Ootober  9th  1903,  rejected  for  a  second  time  and  finally 
all  of  applicant's  claims,  and  we  submit  the  following  rea¬ 
sons  of  appeal: 

1.  The  Examiner  erred  in  deciding  that  the  refer¬ 
ences  of  record  anticipate  the  terms  of  applicant's  claims. 

2.  He  erred  in  deciding  that  the  referenoeB  meet 
the  substance  of  those  claims. 

3.  He  erred  in  rejecting  the  olaims. 

An  oral  hearing  is  respectfully  requested. 

The  appeal  fee  of  §10  is  sent  herewith. 

Respectfully, 

Attorneys  for  Edison. 


New  York,  December  29,  1902. 


Case  No../&^Paper  No,.../.?... 


J.H.D.  t )  1 

in  THr3  UHITfJD  8TATBS  PAIJ8HT  OFFIOB. 


Ootiy  sent  Applicant 


Beford"  the  Hon.  Board  of 
Bxaminor8-in-Chiof. 


4  S.-  PA-TEST  OFFICE, 

;  JAN  9  1903 

;  Wi  -A  1  L  E-.P  . 

\axaminer»s  Statement  ■  £?/.' 

'  . .... .,  ••  •..  .  " 

Tho  claims  appealed  are  tvs  foilowsi  V,. _ ^ 

X*  Thai  probass  of  waking  a  graphic  raoord  representative 
of  sounds,  vrtiioh  oonaiste.in  engaging  a  cutting  tool  with  a  raoord 
•urfaoe,  in  subjecting  the  outtinc  tool  to  tho  lnfluanoa  of  sound 
wyyps,'  pheyeby  it  will,  be  caused  to. bo  vibratod  in  a  plana  parallel 
'to., and- within  bald  surfaoe,:.ahd.  ..in.,  effecting  .a  relative  Movement 
9f  thb  fliirfabe  .iifdth  p.eapbot.  to  .aaid  , cutting  tbolr  yttbrbftir  a 
einu'bua  rbbord  groove  will  be  cleanly  out.  in  aaid  surface  ancl  tho 
ij4topla|.  tf^i^be  o.ettplotely  rbmpyod  by  tho  outting-tool  in  the 
line  orHilie.pathv.  substantial,^,  as  and.  for  ,the.  purpose  set  forth. 

p.  The  process  of  making  ft  graphic  reoord  representative 
of  sounds,  which  consists  in  engaging  a  cutting  tool  partially 
Within  but  not  through  a  record  surface,  in  subjeoting  the  butting 
tool  to  -th  e  inf  1  nonce- of  -sound  waves ,  whereby  •  it  wll  1  bo  oaueed 
to  b'e,  vibratod’  in  a  plana  parallel  to  and  within. said  surface,  and 
in  effeoting  a  relative  hbyonent-., of  the  surf aos;  with  roepoot  to 
aaid  butting  tool,  whereby  a  sinuous  reoord  groove  will  be  oloenly 
not  out  in  aaid  surface  f^nd  , the :J«yterial  will  bo  oomplotply 
removed  by  the  cutting  tool  in  the  line  of  its  path, substantially 
aa  and  for  tho  purpose#  aot.f  prfc!»». ..  v ;  • 

5.  Tho  process  of  making  a  graphic  rooord  roproaontative 
of  aounda,  which  ooioiats  in. cleanly  outting  in  a  waxlike  blank  a 
sinuous  sound  wave, substantially  as  bet  forth* 

4.  Tho  proeees.  of  .oakins  ,  ft  graphic;  rooord  representative  1 
of  sounds,  which  consists  in  cleanly  butting  in  a  waxliko  blank  a 
sinuous,  sound  nave  pr  esonting  a  ouTWsd  'oroas-seotion  and  of  uni¬ 
form  depth  and  width  throughout,  Substantially  as  eot  forth# 

8.  Tho  process  of  making  a  graphio  reoord  representative 
of  eouhds,  consisting  in  cutting1  a  groove  in  a  blank  and  in  butting 
in  line  with  said  groove  a  deeper  einuoue  reoord  groove, substan¬ 
tially  as  sot  forth.  .  t  :■ ..  i  •••'  ; 

6.  .  The  proeees, of, making  a. -graphic,  record  repr  eaentative-  ;. 

.  ,  :  Case  No.. ,/^Paper 


Application  of  ’  ■  ) 
Thomas  A.  Edison,  for  ) 
procss o  of  Making  Sound-Records,  ) 
Bilod  June  4,1908,  '  ) 
Bor.  number  ^10,169,  V  ) 
Attys:Dypr,2dmoncla  &  Byer  ) 


#110,159 - -~X£. 

of  sottnds,  which  consists  in  engaging  a  grooving  tool  within  a 
raoonUng  surface,  in  engaging  a  reoording  stylus  with  said 
surface  in  line  with  said  grooving  tool  but  to  a  greater  depth  and 
widtfi  than  said  tool,  in  subjecting  the  reoording  stylus  to  the 
effect  Of  sound  w^vob,  whereby  it  will  be  vibrated  in  a  plane 
paraiie^to  the  record  surface,  and  in  effecting  a  relative  move¬ 
ment  of /'said  surface  with  respect  to  said  grooving  tool  and 
cording  stylus,  whereby  tho  grooving  tool  will  out  a  shallow 
fund  narrow  groov*  in  Bald  surface  in  advance  of  the  recording 
stylus  substantially  as  sot  forth. 

^  The  reforonoee  relied  upon  are  ae  followsi 

Jones, Dec.  10, 1901 ,#588, 739,  Oraphophone  Tablets, 

Duplicating  Devices; 

-  i Heyslnger,JTov.  11,1890,  #440,155,  Oraphophone s;  .  -j, 

.  .  Berliner, December  17,1901,  #689,350,  Oraphophones,Tab«  J 

.  Adaas-Randall' s  English  Patent  #1068  of  1889; 

Boll  and  Tainter, Hay  4,1886,  #941, 814, Graph., Disk!"  • 

•  In  considering  the  pertinency  of  the  patents  cited  as 
reforonoes,  it  must  be  established  that  at -least  one  of  them 
discloses'4'"'  *•  dearly  cat' lateral  or  gramophone  record. 

The  patent  of  Jones  must  be  considered  ift  connect i cm 
with  this  matter,  and  therein  reference  is  made  to  "cutting  or 
engraving  a  record  groove  of  uniform  depth  and  having  lateral 
Uhdulati  <ns*  .  The  patentee  states  that  this  cutting  or  engraving 
of  a  record  groove  by  the  lateral  movement  of  the  stylus  differ* 
from  the  operation  of  the  well  known  zn-aphophono  system  in  that 
the  Resistance  offered  the  atylus  of  a  graphophona  in  cutting 
downward  to  produce  the  vertical  irregularities  characteristic 

of  t^iat  system,  varies.:  praot ioolly  as  the  cube  of  the  depth  of 
in  the  Jones  proces  s. 

the  dub,  Whereas  the  resistance  ,1s  practically  uniform^  In  other 
word's,  la  the  z^mphophone'  system,  the  stylus  cut  vertically  or 
at  an  angle' to  the  plane  of  the  rseord  surface  and  in' the  Jones 
system  the  stylus'  Cut  laterally  or  parallel  with  the  plane  of  the 
record  surface.  The  graphophona  system  referred  to  by  Jones  id 
the  well  known  system  of  the  Bell  and  Taint  or  patent.  .The  present’; 
applicant- and  appellant  has  held  that  the  Jones  patent  does  not 


1 


.#110,169  - - -  J»'.3 

disclose  a  prooeas  of  outtinrc  out  the  material  to  form  a  easord 
in  the  form  of  a  lateral  undulation  and  the  office  has  held  that 
if  Bell  and  TaintBrdisclosos  a  out  tine  out  action  of  the  cutting 
stylus,  :;,rv that  Jones'  patent  also  disclosed  such  action  of  the 
ptylus,  for  Jones  has  stated  ad  above,  that  the  difference  that 
exists  between  him  system  and  Boll  andfainter  is  ohly  in  thb 
piraction  of  the  but  and  not  in  its  other  ohsraot eristics.  To 
prove  that  Bell  and  Tainter  disclosed  a  true  cut  tine  out  actim, 
attention  is  Invited  to.  the. following  matter  in  said  patents, 
page's,'  lines  70-75,  and  paee  6,  lines  70-74.  These  statements-' 
spem'  to  establish  the  faet  that  the  recording  process  in  said 
patent  involved  a  true  out tine  out  aotlon  of  the  outtinc  stylus 
and  not  >  scran ine-aati  on  as  ap  plicant  has  hold. 

Asldo  from  this  Ground  of  rejection,  thepatoit  of 
^.dam^-R^idall  discloses  a  description  of  a  out  lateral  sound 
record  formod  by  the  vibration  of  a  stylus  ha vine  knife  odees. 
Attention  is  oalled  in  this  connection  to  this  patentee's  Ficures 
45  and  44. 

The.  above  erounds  of  rejection  are  those  that  have  been 
aseienod  in  bar  of  olaims  1,  3  and  4. 

Claims  6  and  6  have  been  rejected  in  view  of  the 
patents  above  cited  and  explained,  and  the  patents  of  Berliner  and 
Hey singer. 

Borliner  discloses  a  previously  formed  plain  spiral 
•  Groove  arid  a  sound'' record  formed  in  the  wills  of  said  Groove  by 
a  latorally  vibrating  stylus'. 

Heysineor  discloses  a  plain  out  groove  and  a  record 
formed  in  th  o' bottom  of  the  croovS. 

Ranson‘,s  JSng.  Pat.  #7685  Of  1888,  (not  sited)  discloses 
a  :cut  ,nla.i^^b»b  and  a  jjU.re«ord  Groove  in  the  previously  formr 
..ed' 


#110,169  - - r  if  f 

It  is  held  that  in  -view  of  tho  patents  of  Jonas,  Adams- 
Raudall  and  Boll  and  Tain  or,  disclosing  out  ting  systems,  and  tho 
patents  Of  Berlin or,  Hey singer  and  Ranson  disclosing  plain  pre¬ 
viously  fornud  .pilain grooves  and  records  thoreinrafter  made  in 
several  different  ways, 'that  the  subjects  matter  of  claims  6  and 
6  do  hot  involve  the  exercise  of  patentable  invention. 

Respectfully  submitted! 

Examiner,  Division  XXIII. 


January  9,1905. 


Case  Paper  No,...£L 


2-201. 


Room  No.  242.  - - 

■Th^c„mmi..i,r.r.f_p.i.ni.,  Department  of  the  Interior, 


&JuU)<  Gl  <$o£o0oru 

,  $o£cAC^c£(&t^-~ 


JJL _ 


pis  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Examiner  in  the  case  of.. 

. -  - .... - far  a  patent  for  an  improvement  inCx 

. 0 ylfruc&o 

filed  4^. . ,  lOOSf,  Serial  JV'o...J./.(P,./.S^f^.,  will  he  heard  by  the 

Examiners-in- Chief,  JV^^CC^  S5^  _ 


If  appellant,  or  his  attorney,  shall  not  appear  at  that  time  the  hearing  will 
be  regarded  as  waived,  and  the  case  will  be  decided  upon  the  record. 

Very  respectfully, 

jf 

Commissioner  of  Patents. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE. 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON 

PROCESS  OP  MAKING  SOUND  RECORDS 

EIDED  JUNE  4,  1902 

SERIAL  NO.  110,199 


BEFORE  THE 
EXAMINERS  IN  CHIEF 
ON  APPEAL. 


BRIEF  FOR  APPELLANT. 

The  present  lnrentlon  relates  to  the  process  of 
making  zigzag  or  sinuous  groove  or  so-oalled  gramophone 
sound  records  in  which  the  record  groove  is  of  uniform  depth 
and  width,  as  distinguished  from  ordinary  phonograph  reoords 
in  which  the  record  groove  is  of  varying  depth  and  width. 

The  improved  process  oontemplates  the  use  of  a  cutting  tool 
held  at  an  single  to  the  recording  surfaoe  and  having  Bottom 
and  side  outting  edges  whereby  a  sinuous  reoord  groove  will 
be  oleanly  out  in  the  recording  material  and  will  present  a 
ourved  oross-section  throughout.  In  order  to  reduce  the 
labor  of  the  recording  devioo  a  grooving  tool  is  employed, 
working  in  advance  of  the  recorder  and  outting  in  the  re¬ 
cording  material  a  ourved  groove  of  less  depth  and  width 
than  the  reoord  groove,  whereby  the  groove  bo  preliminarily 
formed  will  be  obliterated  by  the  reoord  groove-  Before 
appellant's  invention,  gramophone  reoords  had  been  made  with 
a  .needlelike  reoordor  whioh  merely  traced  a  reoord  groove  in 
the  recording  material  and  formed  the  undulations  in  the 
reoord  largely  by  crowding  or  displacing  the  material  to 
one  side  or  the  other  of  the  normal  medial  line.  .Of  course 
even  with  a  needlelike  reoordor  as  heretofore  used,  a  part 
of  the  material  of  the  record  groove  would  be  removed,  al¬ 
though  to  a  great  extent  the  reoord  groove  was  formed  by 


this  crowding  or  sidewise  displacing  of  the  material.  The 
claims  are  all  limited  to  the  putting  of  a  zigzag  reoord 
groove,  and  the  last  two  olaime  are  additionally  limited 
to  the  preliminary  formation  of  a  shallow  groove  for  the 
purpose  of  reducing  the  load  imposed  on  the  reoorder.  By 
employing  a  recorder  having  true  outting  edges,  friotional 
resistance  between  the  reoorder  and  the  material  is  so  much 
reduced  as  to  make  the  resulting  records  more  nearly  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  original  sounds. 

The  olaims  are  principally  rejeoted  by  the  Examiner 
on  the  patent  to  JoneB  No.  688739  of  Deoember  10th  1901,  in 
»hioh  reference  is  made  to  the  "outting  or  engraving  of  a 
record  groove  by  the  lateral  movement  of  the  stylus".  In 
this  Jones  patent  the  invention  is  distinguished  from _ 

"the  well  known  graphophone  system  in  that  the  resis¬ 
tance  offered  the  stylus  of  a  graphophone  in  outting 
downward  to  produce  the  vertioal  irregularities  charac¬ 
teristic  of  that  system  varies  practically  as  the  oube 
of  the  length  of  the  vibrations  of  the  diaphragm  and 
stylus,  whereaB  in  producing  my  original  reoords  the 
resistance  encountered  by  my  recording  stylus  is- exact¬ 
ly  equal  to  the  length  of  the  vibrations." 

in  order  to  show  what  the  "graphophone  system"  1b,  the  Ex¬ 
aminer  refers  to  the  patent  to  Bell  &  Tainter  No.  341214 

<  .ated  May  4,  1886,  whioh  he  states  discloses  a  true  outting 
pperation  in  connection  with  the  formation  of  phonograph 
•eoords.  The  position  of  the  Examiner  is  — 

"that  if  Bell  &  Tainter  discloses  a  outting  out  action 
of  the  outting  stylus,  that  Jones1  patent  also  dis doses 
suoh  action  of  the  stylus ,  for  Jones  haB  stated,  as 
]  above,  that  the  difference  that  exists  between  his  sys¬ 
tem  and  Bell  &  Tainter  is  only  in 'the,  direction  of  the 
cut ,  and  not  in  itB  other  Characteristics. "  7 

j t  is  to  bo  observed,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  Jones 
latent  doeB  not  state  tha.t  the  invention  thereof  differs 
from  the  suggestion  of  Bell  &  Tainter  "only  in  the  direction 

<  f  the  out  and  not  in  its  other  characteristics",  for  the 
leason  that  Jones  doeB  not  refer  to  the  Bell  &  Tainter  pat- 

2 


oat,  nor  does  ho  say  that  the  only  characteristic  difference 
between  his  invention  and  the  graphophone  system  is  in  the 
direction  of  the  cut. 

The  bald  reference  in  the  Jones  patent  to  the  "cut¬ 
ting  or  engraving  of  a  reoord  groove  by  the  lateral  movement 
of  the  stylus"  is  not,  in  our  opinion,  a  sufficiently  dear 
and  comprehensive  disclosure  of  appellant's  Invention  as  to 
fairly  anticipate  the  claims.  Appellant  has  invented  a  new 
recorder  having  side  and  bottom  cutting  edges  by  means  of 
which  a  zigzag  reoord  may  be  truly  out  in  the  recording  ma¬ 
terial.  Jones  does  not  illustrate  nor  does  he  describe  his 
recorder  with  sufficient  particularity  aB  to  enable  it  to  be 
determined  with  certainty  that  it  is  of  a  form  by  whioh  a 
zigzag  record  may  be  truly  out,  as  distinguished  from  a  mere 
displacement  of  the  material  by  a  needlelike  reoorder. .  It 
seems  to  us  that  if  the  olaims  are  to  be  considered  as  an¬ 
ticipated,  Jones's  patent  should  disolose  their  subjeot- 
matter  with  sufficient  particularity  as  to  enable  anyone 
skilled  in  the  art  to  oarry  the  invention  into  effect.  It 
is  perfectly  dear  that  Jones  doeB  not  lay  any  stress  on  the 
"outting  or  engraving"  of  the  material,  as  distinguished 
from  a  mere  displacement  of  the  material  by  a  needlolike 
reoorder.  In  hiB  patent  he  states  that  "heretofore  reoords 
of  this  oharaoter"  have  been  formed  by  traoing  in  a  fatty 
film  covering  an  etohlng  surface  eto.  (page  1  lines  17 — 28). 
This  is  the  well  known  Berliner  needlelike  reoorder.  In 
describing  his  own  invention  he  refers  first  to  the  kind  of 
tablet  used  (page  1  lines  44—50),  and  sayB  that  a  reoord 
groove  is  formed  on  this  tablet  "by  the  use  of  a  sound  re¬ 
cording  maohine  in  a  well  known  manner".  Since  the  only 
well  known  manner  of  recording  these  sinuous  reoord  grooves 
was  by  means  of  a  needlelike  reoorder,  and  as  this  is  admit- 
3 


tad  in  the  patent  itself,  we  do  not  eee  how  it  oan  he  argued 
that  the  reoording  machine  referred  to  possesses  any  speoial 
oharaoteristios  whioh  distinguish  it  from  the  Berliner  re¬ 
corder.  Apparently  all  that  Jones  did  was  to  use  an  ordi¬ 
nary  Berlin or  reoording  needle  for  tracing  a  reoord  direotly 
in  a  wax  surface,  as  distinguished  from  the  traoing  of  the 
reoord  through  a  protecting  film.  Jones  evidently  refers 
to  suoh  traoing  operation  as  "outting  or  engraving''.  It 
is  quite  Immaterial  what  words  JoneB  may  have  UBed  in  his 
patent  so  long  as  the  idea  is  different  from  that  oovered 
hy  the  appealed  claims.  We  submit  with  oonfidenoe  that  no 
one,  however  skilled  in  the  art,  would  he  able  to  take  the 
Jones  patent  and  from  the  instructions  contained  therein 
produoe  a  reoorder  having  true  outting  edges  and  in  that  way 
carry  out  the  process  of  the  appealed  claims. 

Even  if  the  Examiner* s  position  were  correot,  and  if 
we  admit  that  the  Bell  &  Tainter  patent  of  reoord  may  he 
considered  as  supplementing  the  disclosure  oontained  in  the 
Jones  patent,  we  still  insist  that  the  appealed  claims  are 
not  antioipated.  In  the  first  plaoe,  a  reoorder  for  making 
a  sinuous  reoord  groove  is  so  totally  different  from  a  re¬ 
oorder  for  making  an  ordinary  phonograph  reoord  groove  that 
a  reference  to  a  patent  on  a  phonograph  is  not,  in  the  na¬ 
ture  of  things,  an  anticipation  of  a  gramophone  reoorder. 
However  skilled  a  person  might  he  in  the  making  of  phono¬ 
graph  records,  his  knowledge  of  the  art  would  not  be  suffi¬ 
ciently  extensive  as  to  enable  him  to  proceed  with  certainty 
in  the  making  of  sinuous  reoord  grooves.  The  Examiner  does 
not  pretend,  nor  does  anyone  pretend,  that  the  speoial  pho¬ 
nograph  reoorder  of  the  Bell  &  Tainter  patent  is  capable  of 
uso  in  the  making  of  a  gramophone  reoord,  and  if  the  Bell  & 
Tainter  patent  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  reference  at  all,  it 
4 


oan  only  bo  to  the  extent  of  showing  that  out  phonograph 
reoordo  wero  well  known.  We  insist,  however,  and  urge,  in 
the  second  plaoe,  that  Bell  &  Tainter  do  not,  in  their  pat¬ 
ent,  describe  even  a  out  phonograph  record  in  the  Bense  in 
whioh  the  term  is  used  in  the  appealed  claims.  Thus  the 
specification  states  (page  2  et  sag. )  that  the  invention 

"resides  principally  in  the  formation  of  the  sinuous 
record  groove  by  oleanly  cutting  the  material  coinci¬ 
dent  therewith,  so  as  to  thereby  remove  more  or  less 
continuous  shavings  or  ohips  of  the  material,  as  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  the  operations  now  performed,  wherein 
material  is  merely  compressed  or  crowded  to  one  side 
or  the  other  of  the  normal  or  medial  line  of  the  re¬ 
cording  stylus." 

With  the  Bell  &  Tainter  patent  (see  figure  4)  the  recording 
stylus  is  maintained  truly  perpendicular  to  the  flat  record¬ 
ing  surface,  so  that  the  vibrations  of  the  diaphragm  merely 
cause  the  recorder  to  engage  to  a  greater  or  less  depth  in 
the  material,  and  as  the  reoording  Burfaoe  moves  laterally 
with  rospect  to  the  stylus,  the  material  is  merely  removed 
by  a  scraping  operation.  This  is  not  a  true  cutting  opera¬ 
tion.  If,  for  instance,  in  a  wood- turning  lathe  the  out- 
ting  tool  were  held  diametrically  to  the  object,  material 
would  be  removed  by  a  soraping  operation,  but  the  resulting 
surfaoe  would  be  obviously  rough  and  the  tool  would  be  al¬ 
most  sure  to  chatter.  Edison  recognized  these  defects  in 
Bell  &  Tainter' s  suggestion,  and  therefore  suggested  (in  his 
patent  Ho.  393967  of  Deoember  4,  1888)  a  true  cutting  tool 
maintained  at  an  angle  to  the  diameter  of  the  record.  In 
that  patent  (see  figure  1)  Edison  illustrates  the  Bell  & 
Tainter  reoorder,  and  points  out  the  objections  to  a  sorap¬ 
ing  notion.  furthermore,,  in  the  patent  in  question  the  Of- 
fioe  allowed  Edison  a  broad  olaim  on - 

"outting  in  the  reoording  surfaoe  the  reoord  correspon¬ 
ding  to  the  sound  waves  in  oontradistinotion  to  the 
formation  of  suoh  sound  reoords  by  a  soraping  notion." 

In  the  present  case  the  reoorder  is  maintained  at  an  angle 
S 


to  the  reoording  surface,  so  that  a  true  outting  operation 


is  performed  in  exaotly  the  same  sense  as  in  the  production 
of  phonograph  reoords,  as  suggested  in  Edison's  previous 
patent  No.  393967  above  referred  to.  Even,  therefore,  if 
it  he  admitted  that  in  the  Jones  patent  the  suggestion  is 
clearly  apparent  of  following  the  ideas  outlined  by  Bell  & 
Tainter,  that  patent  is  just  as  fully  distinguished  from  the 
present  invention  as  was  the  invention  of  Edison's  previous 
patent  distinguished  from  the  Bell  &  Tainter  patent.  It 
seems  to  us,  however,  that  any  speculations  of  this  kind  are 
quite  out  of  place  in  the  consideration  of  this  case,  for 
the  reason  that  the  Jones  patent  of  itBelf  is  plainly  insuf¬ 
ficient  as  an  anticipation.  It  does  not  dearly  describe 
the  formation  of  a  sinuous  reoord  groove  by  a  true  outting 
operation,  it  does  not  show  or  describe  a  outting  recorder 
for  this  purpose,  and  the  reference  in  the  patent  to  the  use 
"of  a  sound  recording  maohine  in  a  well  known  manner"  makes 
it  quite  dear  that  Jones  had  in  mind  only  the  ordinary 


gramophone  needle,  whose  operation  is  fully  distinguished 


In  his  answer  the  Examiner  also  says  that - 

"the  patent  of  Adams-Randall  disdoses  a  description  of 
a  cut  lateral  sound  reoord  formed  by  the  vibration  of 
a  stylus  having  knife  edges.  Attention  is  called  in 
this  connection  to  this  patentee's  figures  43  and  44." 

We  submit  that  this  statement  of  the  Examiner  is  not  well 
founded,  and  we  will  show  that  although  Adams-Randall  does, 
In  fact,  refer  to  "a  stylus  having  knife  edges",  the  refer- 
Bnoe  to  that  form  of  stylus  is  only  made  in  connection  with 
the  production  of  an  Indented  tinfoil  reoord  exaotly  like 


the  original  Edison  phonograph.  Of  the  many  forms  of  de- 
rices  shown  in  thie  Adams-Randall  patent,  the  only  one  show¬ 
ing  the  sinuous  groove  or  gramophonio  devioe  is  to  be  found 
In  figures  43  and  44.  This  device  is  described  on  page  8, 


where  the  reoorder  in  referred  to  as  a  "rod  141".  A  "rod" 
is  certainly  not  a  cutting  recorder,  hut  in  the  ordinary  ac¬ 
ceptation  of  the  term  is  nothing  more  than  a  needle.  Not 
a  word  is  to  he  found  in  this  patent  referring  to  "a  out 
lateral  sound  record",  so  that  in  this  statement  the  Exami¬ 
ner  is  plainly  inoorreot.  The  only  reference  in  the  patent 
to  the  use  of  a  reoorder  "having  knife  edges"  1b  found  on 
page  9  (line  46  et  seq. )  as  follows: 

"I  have  found  that  as  good,  if  not  better,  results 
are  obtained  in  reproducing  sounds  from  reoords,  by 
using  the  reverse  side  of  the  record,  in  lieu  of  the 
side  upon  whioh  the  reoord  is  made,  the  indentations 
or  lines  of  the  reoord  seemingly  being  more  sharply 
defined  and  distinot,  and  the  sounds  reproduced  there¬ 
from  louder  and  more  natural.  Especially  is  this  true 
if  a  flat,  thin,  sharp  recording  pen  or  style  having  a 

knife  edge  and  much  more  width  than  thiokneBS - a 

miniature  chisel -  is  employed,  using  a  thin  reversi¬ 

ble  recording  material,  such  as  thin,  fine  blotting  pa¬ 
per,  or  very  thin  goldleaf,  or  tinfoil,  or  other  simi¬ 
lar  yielding  tenaoious  material  arranged  upon  a  grooved 
tablet  carrier. " 


It  1b  perfectly  clear  what  this  meanB,  and  the  reference  was 
intended  only  to  be  made  to  the  ordinary  Edison  tinfoil  pho¬ 
nograph.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  with  the  old  tinfoil  phono¬ 
graph  the  reoorder  was  chisellike,  so  that  in  this  respeot 
there  Is  nothing  new  in  the  patentee's  suggestion.  While 
it  might  be  possible  to  seoure  reproductions  from  the  re¬ 
verse  side  of  an  indented  phonograph! o  reoord  made  in  a  me¬ 
tallic  foil  sinoe  such  reoords  would  present  merely  projec¬ 
tions  or  protuberances  with  which  a  reproducer  oould  effec¬ 
tively  engage,  that  would  not  be  readily  possible  with  a 
sinuous  groove  record,  for  the  reason  that  in  reverse,  Buoh 
a  record  would  present  a  zigzag  ridge  whioh  oould  not  be  ef¬ 
fectively  engaged  by  a  reproducer. 

So  far  as  the  first  four  olaims  are  concerned  there¬ 
fore,  we  submit  that  neither  J ones  nor  Adams-Randall  dis¬ 
closes  a  prooesB  of  making  a  gramophone  reoord  by  cleanly 
outting  in  recording  material  a  Binuous  reoord  groove,  nor 
7 


does  either  of  said  patents  give  a  suffioient  basis  to  en¬ 
able  anyone  shilled  in  the  art  to  carry  that  process  into 
effect •  Furthermore,  neither  of  these  references  illus¬ 

trates  nor  describes  a  suitable  reoorder  for  making  these 
reoord  grooves,  and  we  believe  that  invention  would  unques¬ 
tionably  be  required  if  the  attempt  wore  made  to  oarry  out 
the  prooesB  of  the  appealed  olaims  in  connection  with  the 
suggestion  of  either  of  the  previous  patentees.  We  regard 
the  first  four  olaims,  therefore,  as  being  allowable. 

Concerning  the  5th  and  6th  olaims,  it  1b  to  be  noted 
that  each  is  limited  to  the  cutting  of  a  sinuous  reoord 
groove,  so  that  in  this  respect  alone  we  believe  the  olaims 
are  fully  distinguished  from  the  references  of  reoord.  How¬ 
ever,  so  far  as  the  additional  limitation  in  these  claims 
to  the  formation  of  a  preliminary  groove  is  oonoerned,  we 
think  the  patents  to  Berliner  and  to  Heysinger  of  reoord  are 
entirely  insufficient. 

Berliner's  idea  (patent  689350)  was  to  make  a  tablet 
whioh  should  be  capable  of  receiving  a  reoord  in  an  ordinary 
gramophone.  As  is  well  known,  these  gramophones  are  used 
for  reproduction  solely,  and  are  not  provided  with  indepen¬ 
dent  feed  mechanism,  but  the  feed  of  the  reproducer  is  ef¬ 
fected  by  the  reoord  itself.  In  order  that  suoh  a  gramo¬ 
phone  might  be  used  for  making  reoords,  Berliner  suggests 
the  idea  of  first  making  the  tablet  with  a  spiral  groove 
formed  therein,  and  selling  these  tablets  to  the  publio. 

When  a  reoord  is  to  be  made  therefore,  all  that  a  gramophone 
user  has  to  do  is  to  put  one  of  these  speoially  prepared  tab¬ 
lets  in  his  maohine  and  talk  into  it,  the  preliminarily  form¬ 
ed  groove  serving  solely  to  guide  the  reproducer,  whioh  in 
this  oase  becomes  the  reoorder.  So  far  as  we  know,  this 
idea  has  never  been  put  in  praotioe.  Berliner's  idea  1b 

8 


essentially  different  from  appellant's,  inasmuoh  as  the 
smooth  groove  is  completely  formed  before  any  of  the  record 
groove  is  made,  whereas  with  appellant's  invention  the  smooth 
groove  is  formed  immediately  in  advance  of  the  record  groove. 
Furthermore,  with  the  Berliner  scheme  the  smooth  groove  is 
always  deeper  than  the  record  groove,  which  seems  to  us 
would  result  in  the  production  of  a  poor  reoord  and  prevent 
aocurate  reproduction  therefrom,  since  extraneous  sounds 
would  certainly  he  produced  by  the  reproducer  vibrating  back 
and  forth  over  the  smooth  groove  in  the  bottom  of  the  reoord 
groove  (see  figure  2).  Furthermore,  there  seems  to  be  no¬ 
thing  to  prevent  the  reproducer  from  engaging  the  smooth 
groove  and  not  vibrating  at  all.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
Berliner  attempted  to  cut  the  reoord  groove  deeper  than  the 
smooth  groove,  then  the  smooth  groove  would  not  guide  the 
reproducer  or  recorder,  and  hence  the  proper  feed  of  the 
latter  would  be  prevented.  Appellant's  idea  is  one  that 
possesses  speoial  utility  in  the  speoifio  connection  in 
which  it  is  olaimed,  as  it  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
the  feed  of  the  reoorder,  but  relates  solely  to  improving 
the  operation  of  the  latter  by  reduoing  the  work  whioh  the 
reoorder  has  to  perform. 

So  far  as  the  patent  to  Heysinger  (No.  440155)  iB 
concerned,  we  call  attention  to  the  faot  that  Heysinger' s 
idea  was  simply  to  use  a  plow  M  whioh  would  out  a  square 
groove  in  the  recording  material,  in  the  bottom  of  whioh 
groove  the  recording  stylus  N  would  form  an  indented  reoord. 
The  sole  purpose  of  the  groove  was  to  guide  the  reproducer. 
Obviously  Buoh  a  groove  would  not  reduce  in  any  way  the  work 
performed  by  the  recorder- 

So  far  as  the  British  patent  to  Ranson  (No.  7625  of 
1889)  is  concerned,  that  reference  was  not  oited  during  the 
9 


proseoution  of  the  oase  and  le  referred  to  for  the  first 
time  in  the  Examiner's  answer.  We  have  not  been  able  to 
examine  this  patent  and  therefore  oannot  refer  to  it  herein. 
Rather  than  delay  the  oaBa  hy  haying  the  application  return¬ 
ed  to  the  Examiner  for  the  purpose  of  haying  this  referenoe 
properly  oited,  we  will  proceed  with  the  appeal  notwith¬ 
standing  the  new  referenoe,  hut  may  have  to  request  the 
Examiners  in  Chief  to  permit  us  to  file  an  additional  brief 
on  the  subjeot  of  the  Ranson  referenoe,  if  that  is  neoes- 
sary,  or  to  recommend  possible  changes  in  the  last  two  claim 
to  distinguish  their  terms  therefrom.  If,  however,  the  Ran- 
son  patent  is  no  closer  than  the  Borliner  and  Heysinger 
references,  we  see  no  reason  why  the  last  two  olaims  are 
not  allowable. 

Upon  the  whole  case,  we  submit  that  the  Examiner's 
deoision  should  be  reversed. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

Attorneys  for  Appellant. 


Sew  York,  January  31,  1903. 


n.  Patent  Office,  feb .  /3 


1903, 


■^K 


Before  the  £xaainero-in-yhicf,  on  Appeal,  W 

Applic  ation  of  Thomas  A.  Edison  for  a  patent  for  an  'im¬ 
provement  in  Processes  of  Making  Eouna:  Records,  filed  .Tune  4,  1902. 
Serial  no.  110,  159.  > 


Messrs.  Dyer,  Edmonds  &  Dyer  for  appellant. 


The  claims  appealed  are: 

1.  The  process  of  making  a  graphic  record  representative  of 
sounds,  which  consists  in  engaging  a  cutting  tool  with  a 

.  record  surface,  in  subjecting  the  cutting  tool  to  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  sound  waves,  whereby  it  will  be  caused  to  he  vi¬ 
brated  in  a  plane  parallel  to  and  within  said  surface,  •  and 
in  effecting  a  relative  movement  of  the  surface  with  re¬ 
spect  to  sain  cutting  tool,  whereby  a  sinuous  record  groove 
•will  he  cleanly  cut  in  said  surface  j&nd  the  material  will 
be  completely  removed  by  the  cutting  tool  in  the  line  of 
its  path,  substantially  a3  and  for  the  purpose  net  forth. 

2.  The  process  of  making  a  graphic  record, ronrosentative  of 
sounds,  which  consists  in  engaging  a  cutting  tool  n art tal¬ 
ly  'within  but  not  through  a  record  surface,  in  subjecting 
the  cutting  tool  to  the  influence  of  sound  waves,  whereby 
it  will  be  caused  to  be  vibrated  in  a  plane  parallel  to  and 
within  said  surface,  and  in  effecting  a  relative  movement 
of  the  surfaco  with  respect  to  said  cutting  tool,  whereby 

a  sinuous  record  groove  will  be  cleanly  cut  in  said  sur¬ 
face  am.  the  material  will  be  completely  removed  by  the 
cutting  tool  in  the  line  of  its  path,  substantially  as  and 
for  the  purposes  sot  forth. 

3.  The  process  of  making  a  graphic  record  representative  of 
sounds,  "which  consists  in  cleanly  cutting  in  a  waxlike 
blank  a  sinuous  sound  wave,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

The  process  of  making  a  graphic  record  representative  of 
sounds,  which  consists  in  cleanly  cutting  in  a  waxlike 
blank  a  sinuous  sound  wave,  presenting  a  curved  cross-sec¬ 
tion  and  of  uniform  depth  and  width  throughout,  substan¬ 
tially  as  set  forth.  .  « 

The  process  of  making  a  graphic  record  representative  of 
sounds,  consisting  in  cutting  a  groove  in  a  blank  and  in 
cutting  in  line  with  said  groove  a  deeper  sinuous  record  , 
groove,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

The  process  of  malting  a  graphic  record  representative  of 
bounds,  which  consists  in  engaging  a  grooving  tool  with¬ 
in  a  recording  surface,  in  engaging  a  recording  stylus  with 
-said  surface  in  line  v/ith  suiu  grooving  tool  but  to  a  great  - 
,,er  dej)th  and  width  than  said  tool,  in  subjecting  the  record 
ing  stylus  to  the  effect  of  sound  wavoB,  whereby  it  will 


be'  vibrated  in  a  plane  parallel  to  the  record  surface,  and 
in  effecting  a  relative  movement  of  said  surface  with  re¬ 
spect  to  sale  grooving  tool  and  recording  stylus,  whereby 
the  grooving  tool  will  cut  a  shallow  and "narrow  groove  in 
said  surface  in  advance  of  the  recording  stylus,  substan¬ 
tially  as  set  forth. 

The  references  are  patents  to 

Boll  &  Tainter,  Hay  4,  10136,  Ho.  341,  214; 

lleysiiifrer,  3Tov.  11,  1000,  Ho.  440,  153 ; 

Jones,  Dec.  10,  1001,  Ho.  608,  7150; 

Berliner,  Dec.  17,  1901,  Ho.  609,  350; 

British  patent  Do.  1058  of  1880  to  Adams -Randall. 

Claims  1,  2,  3  and  4  of  this  application  are  rejected  by 
the  Examiner  mainly  for  the  reason  that,  as  he  holds,  they  are  antic¬ 
ipated  by  the  patent  to  Jones.  ’ 

This  Jones  patent  states,  after  describing  the  material 
out  of  which  his  disc  or  tablet  is  constructed: 

"Upon  the  surface  of  this  tablet  I  then  form  by  the  use 
of  a  sound-recording  machine  in  a  well-known  manner  a  spi¬ 
ral  groove  of  practically  uniform  depth  that  contains  lat¬ 
eral  sinuosities  or  irregularities  corresponding  to  or 
representing  the  sound-waves  recorded.  The  cutti  ng  or  en¬ 
graving  of  a  re cord-Groove  by  the  lateral  movement  oF  the 
stylus  differs  from  the  operation  of  the  well-known  graph- 
ophone  system  in  that  the  resistance  offered  the  stylus  of 
a  graphophono  in.  cutting  downward  to  produce  the  vertical 
irregularities  characteristic  of  that  system  varies  prac¬ 
tically  as  the  cube  of  the  length  of  the  vibrations  of  the 
diaphragm  and  stylus,  •.vherea.s  in  producing  my  original  rec¬ 
ords  the  resistance  encountered  by  my  recording  stylus  is 
exactly  equal  to  the  length  of  the  vibrations.  On  account 
cf  this  difference  in  principle  I  jun  enabled  to  obtain 
more  accurate,  and  therefore  better,  records  of  the  origi¬ 
nal  rounds.  The  original  record  so  formed  is  an  exact  copy 
of  the  record  to  be  used  for  reproducing." 

The  Examiner  holds  that  this  is  a  sufficient  description 
to  anticipate  the  applicant’s  process.' 

It  is,  hov/ever,  contended  for  the  applicant  that  this  Jones 
patent  does  not  contain  a  sufficient  description  to  enable  any  one 
skillod  in  thd  art  to  cleanly  cut  a  sinuous  record  groove  such  as  is 
effected,  by  this;  use  of  the  applicant’ s;  apparatus. 

The  Examiner  contends  that  there  is  a  sufficient  disclos¬ 
ure  in  the  prior  art  in  the  Bell  &  Taint or  patent,  Ho.  341,  214,  grant¬ 
ed  May  4,  1886,  and  rt'i.th  the  Examiner’s  conclusion  we  agree.  That 
patent  shows i  in  Rigs.  5  and  6  a  stylus' which  is  described  (p.  3,  line 

67 , )  as  "preferably  f ormedof  a  round  wire  by  turning  the  end  coni- 
■cal  ancl  rounding  the  extremity,  and  then  grinding  off  one 
' 3iiie  to  the  axis  of  the  wire.  This  leaves  sharp  cuttina-edg- 
/  es  on  "both  sides  of  the  tapering  point.  These  edges  remove 


the  material  in  chips  or  shavings,  like  a  plane  on  turning 
tool.  It  is  not  essential  to  give  this  form  to  the  style. 
Any  form  which  will  remove  the  material  and  not  simply 
displace  it  will  answer."  ’ 

It  is  further  statod(p.  6,  lineB  70-79): 

"The  term  ’cutting’  is  herein  employed  to  indicate  an  ac¬ 
tion  in  which  the  material  is  removed  in  chips,  shuvings, 
or  other  small  pieces-  as  in  engraving,  turning,  and  the 
like-  ant  not  simply  displaced. 

The  displacement  of  the  material  is  not  only  a  dif¬ 
ferent  operation  from  the  cutting  contemplated  by  this  in¬ 
vention,  but  is  not  calculated  to  accomplish  the  objects 
for  which  cutting  or  graving  is  employed." 

Y/e  see  no  reason  why  the  tool  illustrated  in  ?igs.  5  and 
6  of  this  patent  to  Beil  &  Tainter  is  not  auapteu  as  it  stands  to  per¬ 
form  a  cutting  operation  such  as  is  olTected  by  the  applicant's  tool. 
Koreover,  the  patentee  Jones  undoubtedly  meant  when  he  said  "cutting 
or  engraving",  cutting  in  the  sense  in  which  the  applicant  uses  that 
term.  In  the  consideration  of  the  application  record  of  the  Jones 
patent  in  the  argument  filed  August  13,  1900,  a  clear’  distinction  was 
drawn  by  the  attorney  for  Jones  between  cutting  and  indenting.  In  re¬ 
ferring  to  a  prior  patent  the  attorney  for  Jones  stated: 

"3'rom  tiie  fact  that  this  stylus  £  is.  shown  as  conical 
ancl  tapering  to  a  point,  it  would  appear  that  its  true  mode, 
of  action  is  to  scratch —  without  removing  the  material 
cleanly  as  in  a  true  cutting  mperation.  So  that,  in  any 
event,  applicant's  cutting  or  engraving  method  is  different 
from  either  the  alleged  'Indenting*  or  the  actual  scratch¬ 
ing  method  of  the  patentees*" 

It  is  tiius  clear  that  Jones^  ana  his  counsel  were  referring 
to  a  cutting  operation  by  which  the  material  was  cleanly  relieved, 
which  it  appears  to  us  is  just  the  character  of  operation  that  is  ef¬ 
fected  by  the  applicant's  tool*  He  manifestly  did  not  refer  in  his 
patent  when  he  used  the  term  "cutting  or  engraving"  to  any  such  de¬ 
vice  as  the  Berliner  recording  needle  for  tracing  a  record  directly 
in  a  wax  surface. 

It  is,  however,  insisted  on  behalf  of  the  applicant  that 
the  Bell  &  Tainter  patent  while  it  describes  cleanly  cutting  the  ma¬ 
terial,  does  not  in  fact  describe  a  true  cutting  operation,  but  that 
it  is  really  a  scraping  operation,  ana;  our  attention  is  called  to  a  p 
-patent  to  Edison  in  which  Edison  recognizes  the  defects  in  the  Bell  & 
Tainter  apparatus  and  describes  a  true -cutting  tool  which  was  main- 


tained  in  operative  position  at  an  angle  to  the  diameter  of  the  rec¬ 
ord*  This  contention  appears  to  have  been  conceded  by'  the  Office, 
although  it  does  not  appear  from  the  record  of  .this  Edison  patent 
what  were  the  reasons  for  such  concession,  and  Edison  was  allowed  a 
broad  claim  on  "cutting  in  the.  recording-surface ' the«.record < correspond¬ 
ing  to  the  soimd-v/aves  in  contradistinction  to  the  formation  of  such 
sound-records  by  a  scraping  action." 

This  Edison  patent  was  granted  December  4,  1888,  and  was 
therefore  a  part  of  the  art  prior  to  the  taking  out  of  the  Jones  pat¬ 
ent,  so  that  any  one  attempting  to  carry  out  the  process  of  the  Jones 
patent  had  the  option  of  using  ■  as  well  known  sound -recording  devices 
either  the  tool  shown  in  the  Bell  &  fainter  patent  or  the  tool  shown 
in  the  Edison  patent.  If  the  tool  of  the  Bell  &  fainter  patent  with 
its  sharp  cutting  edges  on  both  sides  of  the  tapering  point  was  not 
a  true  cutting  tool,  Edison's  patent  indicated  that  the  way  to  make 
this  tool  a  true  cutting  tool  was  to  give  it  the  necessary  inclina¬ 
tion. 

There  was,  therefore,  known  in  the  ar*t,  or  obviously  sug¬ 
gested  thereby,  an  inclined  cutting  tool  having  sharp  cutting  edges  on 
both  sides,  these  sharp  cutting  edges  extending  entirely  around  the 
end  of  the  tool.  Y/ith  this  known  state  of  the  art,  we  fail  to  see 
how  any  one  coulu  have  any  difficulty  in  carrying  out  the  process 
described  by  Jones,  or  in  so  doing  how.  he  coulu  fail  to  carry  out  the 
process  described  by  the  applicant  in  this  case. 

In  the  Jones  patent  "a  record-groove  of  appreciable  and 
practically  uniform  depth  and  having  lateral  undulations  corresponding 
to  the  sound-waves"  (p.  2,  lines  94-97)  was  produced  by  the  use  of  a 
cutting  tool  and  the  process  by  which  it  was  made,  as  described  in 
the  patent,  seems  to  us  a  clear  anticipation  of  these  claims.  The 
record  of  the  Jone3  patent  shows  that  actual  records  made  by  the  pro¬ 
cess  of  that  patent  were  submitted  to  the  Examiner,  and  it  was  on 
the  strength  of  the  improved  results  obtained  by  this  record  that  the 
patent  was  allowed,  so  that  it  would  appear  that  the  patent  is  not  a 
mere  paper  parent  , I'bdF 'oiie" Uh1  which  ap;  actually  useful  and.  now  result  i 
had  been  produced.  ■  - 


The  Examiner  also  relies  upon  the  British  patent  to  Adams- 
Randall.  Of  this  patent  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  it  does  not  dis¬ 
close  the  invention  claimed. 

Claims  5  and  6  are  rejected: on  the  patents  to  Berliner  and 
Heysinger,  and  on  a  British  patent  Ho.  .7625  of  1889.  The  British 
patent  was  not  cited  until  , the  appeal  was  taken  and  does  not,  in  any 
event,  contain  a  sufficient  disclosure,  of  the  process  of  claims  5 
and  6.  All  that  the  patent  states  is  that 

"It  is  a  convenience  sometimes  to  cut  a  groove  in  the  cylin¬ 
der  before  the  record  is 'made.  In  this  case  after  the 
groove  is  cut  the  record  can  be  actually  cut  or  else  only 
indented  in  the  wax  which  may  be  made  of  two  degrees  of 
hardness  the  harder  wax  being  on  the  surface." 

It  is  a  convenience  to  attach  the  cutter  for  cutting  the 
groove  on  to  the  framework  carrying  the  recording  dia¬ 
phragm."  (p.  5,  lines  16-21). 

The  patent  to  Heysinger  need  not  be  considered  since  ap- 
jjarently  the  indenting  tools  make  their  record  in  the  bottom  of  a 
previously  formed  groove. 

The  patent  to  Berliner,  however,  describes  a  process  in  which 
a'  parallel  sided  groove  is  made  in  the  sound  record,  and  on  this  pre¬ 
liminary  groove  is  superimposed  a  laterally  undulating  sound  record 
groove.  This  patent  states  (p.  2,  lines  37-44): 

"The  preliminary  groove  seems  to  have  the  function  of 
guiding  the  record-stylus  and,  v/hat  is  more  important,  of 
lessening  the  work  requkred,  to  be  done  by  the  recording 
styluB  in  shaping  or  indenting  the  material  of  the  record- 
plate,  which  would  otherwise  have  to  be  shaped  or  indent¬ 
ed  by  the  recording-3 tylus.f 

The  patent  further  states  that  (p.  2,  lines  29-30): 

"A  close  inspection  of  the  finished  record  reveals  both 
grooves." 

Here  is  a  clear  disclosure  of  the  idea  that  a  better  rec¬ 
ord  may  be  obtained  by  having  a  preliminary  groove  so  that  the  re¬ 
cording  tool  will  not  have  so  much  work  to  do. 

Vie  are  of  the  opinion  that  the'  application  to  a  record 
groove  of  the  sinuous  type  shown  in  the  Jones  patent  of  this  prelimina¬ 
ry  groove  described  by  Berliner  is  one'  clearly  not  requiring  inven¬ 
tion.  All  that  was  required  was  to  shape  the  tools  to  cut  the  grooves 
in  a  manner  corresponding  to  the  shape  of  the  final  recording  tool. 

Vie  do  not  find  in  the  process  claimed  any  new  idea  of  pro's, 


cedure  or  any  new  mode  of>  operation.  ■ 

The  ueciglon  of  the  Examiner  is  accordingly  affirmed 


Examinors-in-Chlef 


0  •'  W  Q  \ 

€3 

LAW  OFFICES" 

DYER,  EDMONDS  &  DYER. 

patents  aito  patent  Causes. 

=®E  Petition. 


c  t,3c  Commissioner  of  Fatents : 

YOUR  petitioner,  THOMAS  A.  BDISOH,  a  oitizen  of  the  tfnitod 
Q,  stat,B*  **«*idins  at  XleweUyn  Park,  Orange,  in  the  County  of  Boso* 
and  State  of  Hew  Jersey,  whose  post  offlee  address  Is  Orange,  How 
Jersey, 

PRAYS  THAT  LETTERS  PATENT  MAY  BE  GRANTED.  TO  HIM  FOR  THE  XMPR0VSMHHT3 

IH  SOTJBD  RECORDS 


...  SET  FORTH  ,N  THE  ANNEXEO  SPECIFICATION;  AND  HE  HEREBY  APPOINTS  DYER.  EDMONDS 
'  AND  DVER-  REGISTRATION  NO.  2B8B  (A  FIRM  COMPOSED  OF  RICHARD  N.  DYER,  SAMUEL 
O.  EDMONDS  AND  FRANK  L.  DYER).  OF  NO.  31  NASSAU  STREET.  NEW  YORK  CITY,  HIS 
ATTORNEYS,  WITH  FULL  POWER  OF  SUBSTITUTION  AND  REVOCATION,  TO  PROSECUTE 
Q  THIS  APPLICATION,  to  make  ALTERATIONS  AND  AMENDMENTS  THEREIN,  TO  RECEIVE 
THE  PATENT,  AND  TO  TRANSACT  ALL  BUSINESS  IN  THE  PATENT  OFFICE  CONNECTED 
THEREWITH.  , 


SPECIPICATIOH. 


TO  TBKOM  IT  MAY  COHCERN:  . 

Bo  it  known  that  I,  THOMAS  A.  EDISOH,  a  oitizen  of 
the  United  States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange,  in 
the  County  of  Base*  and  State  of  Hew  Jersey,  have  invented, 
certain  new  and  useful  IMPROVEMENTS  HI  SOUND  RECORDS  (ease 
Ho.  107S),  of  which  the  following  is  a  description. 

Hy  invention  relates  to  improvements  in  sound 
reoords  of  the  type  in  which  the  record  groove  is  sinuous 
and  is  of  substantially  uniform  depth  and  width,  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  a  phonographlo  reeord  wherein  these  dimensions 
are  not  uniform.  Sound  reoords  of  the  kind  to  whioh  my 
present  invention  relates  are  relatively  simple  in  Character 
and  the  matter  of  duplicating  them  does  not  present  the  dif¬ 
ficulties  of  duplicating  phonographlo  records. 

Prior  to  my  invention,  in  the  making  of  sound 
reoords  in  a  disk  blank,  for  example,  in  the  form  of  a 
sinuous  groove  of  substantially  uniform  depth  and  width,  a 
suitable  plate  or  foundation  was  covered  with  a  thin  layer 
or  film  of  waxlike  material  whioh  was  engaged  by  a  needle- 
like  recording  stylus  oonneoted  to  the  diaphragm,  the  ar¬ 
rangement  being  suoh  that ' in  the  absence  of  vibrations  the 
stylus  removed  the  film  of  waxlike  material  to  its  full 
depth  to  disclose  the  foundation  and  in  the  form  of  a  spiral 
groove  of  uniform  width.  By  vibrating  the  diaphragm,  the 
said  groove  was  caused  to  partake  of  sinuosities  and  undula¬ 
tions  corresponding  graphically  to  the  sound  waves.  By 
suitable  etching,  eleotroplating,  photographic ipfc  allied 
processes  a  matrix  was  secured  from  the  master  so  formed 
and  used  for  the  production  of  duplicates  by  various  method: . 

1 


The  processes  used  prior  to  my  invention  for  the  making  of 
these  records  were  objectionable,  beoause  the  reoords  pro¬ 
duced  were  not  aoourately  representative  of  the  Bound  vibra¬ 
tions,  firBt,  beoause  the  recording  stylus,  in  order  that 
it  may  oertainly  out  through  the  depth  of  the  waxlike  mate¬ 
rial,  must  be  engaged  with  considerable  friction  against  the 
foundation  on  whioh  the  wax  is  oarried,  thereby  offering  un¬ 
necessary  resistance  to  the  vibration  of  the  stylus,  and 
second,  beoause  the  Btylus,  being  unprovided  with  cutting 
edges,  in  its  vibrations  merely  displaced  or  compressed  the 
like  material  in  the  formation  of  a  groove  instead  of  cleanly 
cutting  it. 

In  an  application  for  Letters  Patent  filed  November 
8th  1901,  Serial  No.  81,534,  of  whioh  the  present  oase  is  o 
division,  I  describe  a  suitable  apparatus  for  making  these 
reoords  by  the  aotion  of  a  recording  stylus  having  a  true 
outting  edge,  the  latter  being  preferably  formed  on  the  arc 
of  a  circle;  and  I  desoribe  also  in  said  application  the 
employment  of  a  grooving  tool  preceding  the  recorder  and  by- 
means  of  whioh  the  material  in  advance  of  the  recorder  will 
be  partly  removed  to  thereby  impose  upon  the  reoorder  the 
necessity  of  removing  the  minimum  amount  of  material  in 
foraing  the  record  groove.  My  improved  sound  record  is 
formed  by  means  of  an  apparatus  of  this  genus. 

Broadly  stated,  my  present  invention  relates  to  a 
new  commercial  artiele  of  manufacture,  to  wit,  an  original 
record  surface  containing  a  oleanly  out  sinuous  spiral 
record  groove,  presenting  preferably  in  oross-seotion  the 
aro  of  a  circle,  and  which  is  aoourately  representative  of 
the  original  sounds,  and  which  record  can  be  used  for  direol 
reproduction  or  as  a  master  from'  whioh  a  matrix  can  be  form, 
ed  for  producing  duplicates.  My  improved  record  in  its 


preferred  form  1b  also  distinguished  from  reoords  as  hereto¬ 
fore  made  with  sinuous  record  grooves,  in  being  composed  of 
a  suitable  waxlike  material  with  the  groove  cleanly  out 
therein  and  extending  through  only  a  portion  of  its  depth 
instead  of  being  traoed  through  the  entire  thickness  of  a 
waxlike  film  as  with  the  prior  processes.  When  my  inprovod 
record  is  formed  in  an  apparatus  employing  a  grooving  tool 
cutting  in  advanoe  of  the  reoorder,  my  improved  record  is 
further  distinguished  from  records  as  heretofore  made  with 
sinuous  record  grooves  inasmuch  as  the  record  groove  will 
be  provided  with  a  continuation  in  the  form  of  a  groove  of 
less  depth  than  width  and  of  a  length  in  advance  of  the 
record  groove  depending  obviously  upon  the  distance  between 
the  grooving  tool  and  the  reoorder  in  the  recording  apparatw. 

In  order  that  the  invention  may  be  better  understood 
attention  is  directed  to  tho  accompanying  drawings  forming 
part  of  this  specification,  and  in  which  figure  1  is  a  plan 
view  of  my  improved  record}  figure  2  an  enlarged  seotional 
view  illustrating  the  formation  of  the  raoord  by  the  con¬ 
joint  aotion  of  a  grooving  tool  and  a  cutting  recording  sty¬ 
lus;  figure  3  a  plan  view  on  an  enlarged  scale  showing  tho 
end  portion  of  the  reoord  groove  with  the  extension  there¬ 
from  formed  by  the  grooving  tool;  figure  4  a  seotion  on  tho 
line  4—4  of  figure  3;  and  figure  8  a  seotion  on  the  lino 
5—5  of  figure  3. 

In  all  of  the  above  views  corresponding  parts  are 
represented  by  the  same  numerals  of  reference. 

The  reoord  is  preferably  in  the  form  of  a  disk  1 
made  conveniently  of  the  usual  phonographic  waxlike  mate¬ 
rial.  Tho  reoord  groove  2  la  formed  in  the  recording  sur¬ 
face  of  the  blank,  and  when  the  latter  is  disklike  this 
groove  Is  in  the  form  of  a  sinuous  spiral,  as  shown.  The 
3 


I  record  groove  ia  formed  by  the  cutting  aotion  of  a  stylus  3 
provided  with  a  true  outting  edge  4  engaging  the  bottom  and 
sides  of  the  groove.  This  outting  edge  is  preferably  form¬ 
ed  on  the  arc  of  a  oirele,  so  that  the  sinuous  reoord  groove 
will  be  curved,  as  shown  in  figure  5.  The  recording  appa¬ 
ratus  preferably  contemplates  a  grooving  tool  5,  made  like 
an  ordinary  phonographic  recorder,  and  whioh  precedes  the 
recording  stylus  to  cut  a  spiral  groove  6  in  the  material 
in  advance  of  the  reoord  groove  2  but  of  less  depth  and 
width  than  the  latter,  as  shown  in  figures  3  and  4.  Ob- 
biously  when  this  grooving  tool  is  employed,  the  resulting 
reeord  will  be  characterized  by  having  a  short  section  of 
the  groove  6  extending  as  a  continuation  at  the  end  of  the 
reeord  groove  2,  as  shown  in  figure  3.  The  record  so  fora¬ 
ed  may  be  engaged  directly  by  a  reproducing  device,  of  the 
type  described  and  claimed  in  my  application  for  litters 
Patent  filed  November  8th  1901,  Serial  No.  81,535,  or  it 
may  be  used  as  a  master  from  which  a  matrix  can  be  obtained 
in  any  suitable  way  and  duplicates  seoured  therefrom. 


Having  now  described  my  invention,  what  I  claim  as 
new  therein  and  desire  to  secure  by  letters  Patent  is  as 
follows: 

1.  As  an  article  of  manufacture,  a  sound  reoord 
comprising  a  record  surface  carrying  a  sinuous  reoord  groove 
of  substantially  uniform  width  and  depth,  said  groove  being 
cleanly  and  smoothly  cut  within  the  surface,  substantially 
as  set  forth. 


2.  As  an  article  of  manufacture,  a  sound  reeord 
[comprising  a  reoord  surface  carrying  a  sinuous  record  groove 
P*  substantially  uniform  width  and  depth,  said  groove  being 
cleanly  and  smoothly  cut  within  the  surface  and  in  its  cross- 


section  presenting  an  arc  of  a  eirole  throughout  its  length,] 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

3.  As.  an  article  of  manufacture ,  a  sound  record 
the  surface  of  mioh  carries  a  sinuous  record  groove  of  less] 
depth  than  the  thiotoess  of  said  record,  substantially  as 
set  forth. 

A'.  As  an  article  of  manufacture,  a  sound  record 
comprising  a  disk  of  recording  material  carrying  a  sinuous 
spiral  record  groove  of  substantially  uniform  width  and 
depth,  said  groove  being  cleanly  and  smoothly  cut  within 
the  recording  surface,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

^  S'.  As  an  article  of  manufacture,  a  sound  record 
comprising  a  disk  of  recording  material  carrying  a  sinuous 
spiral  record  groove  of  substantially  uniform  width  and 
depth,  said  groove  being  cleanly  and  smoothly  cut  within  the 
recording  aurfaoe  and  in  its  oross-seotion  presenting  an  aro 
of  a  oirole  throughout  its  length,  substantially  as  set  forth, 
6.  A's  an  article  of  manufacture,  V  disk  of  waxlike 
[material  the  surface  of  which  carries  a  sinu\us record  grow > 
of  less  depth  thkn  the  thickness  of  said  diBk^substantially 
as  set  forth.  \ 

jf  As  an  article  of  manufacture,  a  sound  record 
comprising  a  record  surface  carrying  a  sinuous  record  groove| 
of  substantially  uniforA width  and  depth,  and  a  grooved  con¬ 
tinuation  of  said  record  groove  of  less  depth  and  width  than] 
the  latter,  substantially  V  set  forth. 

S.  As  an  art  i  ole  of  manufacture,  a  sound  record 
comprising  a  reoord  surface  oarrying  a  slnuouB  record  groove] 
of  substantially  uniform  width  and  depth,  said  groove  being 
cleanly  and  smoothly  out  within  the  surface,  and  a  continua¬ 
tion  at  the  end  of  said  record  groove  of  less  depth  and 
width  than  the  same,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


WITNESSED 


* 


THIS  SPECIFICATION  SIGNEO  AND 


0 


Oath. 


State  of 
Counts  of 


THOMAS  A,  HDISOK,  the  above-named 

PETITIONER,  BEING  DULY  SWORN,  DEPOSES  AND  SAYS  THAT  HE  IS  A  OltiZfclS 

OF  THE  tfnitod  States,  and  a  resident  of  Dlewellyn  Park,  Orange, 
in  the  County  of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey; 


THAT  HE  VERILY  BELIEVES  HIMSELF  TO  BE  THE  ORIGINAL,  FIRST  AND  SOLE  INVENTOR 

OF  the  IMPROVMENTS  IN  BOUND  RECORDS 


DESCRIBED  AND  CLAIMED  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION;  THAT  HE  DOES  NOT 
KNOW  AND  DOES  NOT  BELIEVE  THAT  THE  SAME  WAS  EVER  KNOWN  OR  USED  BEFORE 
HIS  INVENTION  OR  DISCOVERY  THEREOF;  OR  PATENTED  OR  DESCRIBED  IN  ANY 
PRINTED  PUBLICATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA  OR  ANY  FOREIGN  COUNTRY 
BEFORE  HIS  INVENTION  OR  DISCOVERY  THEREOF,  OR  MORE  THAN  TWO  YEARS  PRIOR 
TO  THIS  APPLICATION;  OR  IN  PUBLIC  USE  OR  ON  SALE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  FOR 
MORE  THAN  TWO  YEARS  PRIOR  TO  THIS  APPLICATION,  AND  THAT  NO  APPLICATION 
FOR  FOREIGN  PATENT  HAS  BEEN  FILED  BY  HIM  OR  HIS  LEGAL  REPRESENTATIVES  OR 
ASSIGNS  IN  ANY  FOREIGN  COUNTRY. 

SWORN  TO  AND  SUBSCRIBED  BEFORE  ME  THIS  DAY  OF  1S0  ' 


notarypuIlicV 


;  (siCt^Lfi-  /  O  7  3  . 


Department  of  the  Interior, 


Washington,  D.  C., 


r„v ' 

SERIES  OF  1900. 

noJ10j.1A:P 

A- 

%  1 
: _ lOOlr'  | 


'IT 

f 

I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  petition,  specification,  oath,  and  s 

o 

drawing  of  your  alleged  Improvement  in _  J 

_ _ _ a)  <-&(.-  AA  £,  c<-^-  _ _  f 


3  with  Fifteen  Dollars  as  the  first  fee  payable  thereon.  | 

|  The  papers  are  duly  filed,  and  your  application  for  a  patent  will  he  taken  1 
»  up  for  examination  in  its  order _ _ _  1 


g  You  will  he  duly  advised  of  the  examination. 
|  '  Very  respectfully, 


J  M.  £ 


Commissioner  of  Patents . 


31-  ft  7 


—In  order  to  constitute  an  application  fori 
Irowings  ( wliero  tho  nature  of  tin 

plication  is  considered  as  complet., _ 

n  duo  form  by  tlio  inventor  or  applicant. 


=j=gfA^t- 

•  a  patent,  tlio  inventor  is  by  Inw  required  to  furnish  l/np2tit 
rails  of  drawings)  nnd  to  pny  tlio  required  fee. 


id  to  pay  tlio  required  feo-  •  ' 

'  id  thereon,  until  nil  its  parts,  as  lioro  spcciUcd,  aro 


United  States  Patent  Office,  ,  :  • 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.p  July  3,1902*1  ■,  '  ’ 

Thomas  A*  Edison, 

cars  Dyer, Edmonds  &  Dyer, 

#31  Nassau  Street, 

New  yorJc,N.y. 


Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 

for  Sound-Records, filed  Juno  4,1908, serial  number  110,160. 

R  J,  . 


nr  s.  mi  OFFICEJ 
I  JUL  8  1902  1 

|  mailed..! 


Claims  1  to  6  Inclusive,  are  rejected  for  i»nt  of 
patontablo  novelty  In  view  of  the  patont  of  Jonas, December  10, 
1901,  #688,739, . (Graphophone  Tablet a, Duplicating  Devices)  and 
Adams-Randal  1* a  English  Patont  #1058  of  1889,  Pigs.  42  and  44, 
:  (Graphophones) . 

Claims  7  and  8  are  rejected  for  want  of  patentable 
invention  in  view  of  the  patent  of  Heysinger, November  11,1890, 
#440 , 16  5,  ( Graphophone  s) . 


Case  No, Paper  No,./. 


l  THOMAS  A.  EDISON 

jj  IMPROVEMENTS  IN  SOUND  RECORDS  j 

!j  FILED  JUNE  4,  1902 
SERIAL  NO.  110,160 
'i  ROOM  NO.  219. 

:  HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS, 

;  Sir: 

We  amend  the  above  entitled  application  by  erasing 
the  third  and  sixth  claims  and  by  renumbering  the  remaining 
claims  accordingly.  This  amendment  is  made  in  view  of  pat¬ 
ent  to  Jones,  wherein  the  record  groove  is  apparently  of  less 
thickness  than  the  record  tablet. 

We  respectfully  ask,  however,  that  the  remaining  ' 
claims  may  be  reconsidered,  as  we  fail  to  find  that  they  are 
:  adequately  anticipated  by  the  references.  The  first  and  j 
:  third  claims,  as  now  numbered,  are  limited  to  a  sound  record 
j  having  a  sinuous  record'  groove  “cleanly  and  smoothly  out 

i|  within  the  surface*,  and  the  seoond  and  fourth  claims  are 

jj  . 

|j  additionally  limited  to  the  making  of  the  record  groove  with 
jj  a  cross  seotion  “presenting  an  aro  of  a  oircle  throughout 
|  its  length". 

So  far  as  the  British  patent  to  Adams-Randall  is 
i|  concerned,  we  fail  to  find  therein  any  disclosure  which  even 
approximates  applicant's  invention.  In  fact,  the  only  ref¬ 
erence  in  the  patent  to  a  record  having  a  sinuous  groove  is 
in  connection  with  the  description  of  figures  43  and  44,  on 
pages  8  and  9,  wherein  the  most  general  reference  is  made  to 
Case  No,.,Z|£rPaper 


“a  reoording  or  reproducing  t-raoer  or  traveller0 .  So  far 
as  we  can  find,  the  patent  nowhere  states  that  a  sinuous 
grooved  record  is  made  by  a  clean  and  smooth  cut,  nor  does 
the  patent  describe  any  recorder  for  the  purpose  having  cut- 
:  ting  edges.  So  far  as  the  drawings  are  concerned,  they  are  j 
obviously  on  too  small  a  soale  to  supply  any  def icier oy  in  the 
specification.  Apparently,  the  tracer  or  traveller  in 
:  question  is  simply  a  piece  of  wire,  without  any  pains  being  j 
taken  to  form  it  with  cutting  edges. 

So  far  as  the  patent  to  Jones  is  concerned,  it  is  \ 
true  that  the  specification  refers  to  the  “cutting  or  engrav-j 
ing  of  a  record  groove. by  the  lateral  movement  of  the  stylus" ■ 
but  this  language  must  be  road  in  connection  with  the  whole  i 
of  the  description,  from  which  it  appears  that  so  far  as  the  j 
:  formation  of  the  record  groove  is  concerned,  Jones  claimed  j 
absolutely  no  novelty  therein.  In  fact,  he  says  that  he  | 

;  forms  "by  the  use  of  a  sound  recording  machine  in  a  well  known 
;;  manner  a  spiral  groove  of  practically  uniform  depth".  Now, 
the  "well  known  manner*  of  forming  these  grooves  at  the  date 
i  of  Jones'  application  was  by  means  of  a  needle-like  recorder, 
j  which  merely  displaced,  compressed  or  orowded  the  material 
ij  to  one  side  or  the  other  of  its  medial  line.  '.This  operation 
is  evidently  that  whioh  Jones  refers  to  as  “cutting  or  engrav¬ 
ing".  Apparently,  Jones  did  not  consider  the  matter  minutely 
enough  to  distinguish  between  a  true  cutting  action  and  a  mere 
tracing  operation.  That  we  are  correct  in  our  surmise  is, 
we  think,  fully  substantiated  by  Jones'  drawing,  in  v/hloh,  in 
figure  1,  he  shows  very  clearly  a  needle-like  reoordor.  At 
any  rate,  the  Jones  patent  iis  not  a  full  and  clear  disolosure 
2.  Case  No, Paper 


I  i\ 

of  a  true  cutting  recorder,  nor  does  it  fully  and  completely 
disolose  the  method  of  making  a  record  with  a  cleanly  out 
sinuous  reoord  groove-. 

In  this  connection,  the  Examiner  will  no  doubt 
recall  that  in  the  original  patent  to  Bell  &  fainter,  No.  '  j 

341,214,  reference  was  made  to  “engraving  or  cutting  the  j 
record"  and  the  claims  referred  throughout  to  the  cutting  of 
the  reoord  and  the  employment  of  a  cutting  style.  Yet  Edi¬ 
son,  in  his  patent  No.  393,967,  distinguished  between  such  a 
;  cutting  or  engraving  operation  as  described  by  Bell  &  Tainter 
and  was  allowed  a  broad  claim  on  the  cutting  of  a  record  “in 
contradistinction  to  the  formation  of  suoh  sound  records  by 
a  soraping  notion.0  We  submit  that  in  the  present  case  the  | 
Jones  patent  is  not  any  more  analogous  to. Edison's  present  j 
invention  than  was  the  Bell  &  Tainter  patent  analagouB  to  the 
invention  of  Edison's  previous  patent.  We  submit,  therefore, 
that  the  Jones  patent  should  be  withdrawn  as  being  insuffi¬ 
cient.  All  that  we  have  said  concerning  the  Jones  patent 
is  outside  of  the  argument  which  can  be  especially  directed 
to  the  second  and  fourth  claims,  which  are  specifically  lim- 
j;  ited  to  the  formation  of  a  reoord  groove  of  special  oross 
,  section.  The  JoneB  patent  is  certainly  inadequate  as  a  ref- 
ji  erence  to  these  claims. 

:j  ^ifth  and  sixth  olaims  are  not,  in  our  opinion, 

|j  met  fcy  thQ  patent  to  Heysinger  of  record.  In  the  first 
|  place,  the  claims  are  limited  to  a  sinuous,  record  groove, 
j|  whereas  with  the  Heysinger  patent  the  groove  is  not  sinuous. 

||  The  claims  are  limited  to  a  groove  of  uniform  width  and  depth, 

I  jihereas  with  the  reference  the  groove  is  of  varying  depth. 

3.  Case  No...Zi30Paper  No . *£.... 


1 


The  claims  are  furthermore  limited  to  a  grooved  continuation 
of  the  record  groove,  of  less  width  than  the  latter,  Whereas 
with  the  reference  the  continuation  of  the  record  groove  is 
of  greater  width  than  the  same.  Finally,  the  sixth  claim 
is  limited  to  a  cleanly  cut  record  groove,  whereas  with  the 
reference  the  record  groove  is  merely  indented,  as  in  the 
old  tinfoil  phonograph. 

We  hope,  in  view  of  these  considerations,  that  the 
claims  may  be  allowed. 

Very  respectfully, 

Attorneys  for  Edison.' 


£  <>,  (2M^ . 

.  ,  _ ,  ,  ,  Commissioner  of  Patents. 

This  applioation  has  been  duly  reconsidered  In  viow 
of  the  amendment  filed  the  7th.  inst* 

The  patents  of  Jones  and  Adarae-Randall  both  disclose 
sinuous  rooord  grooves  in  a  gramophone  tablet  said  sinuous  grooves 
being  described  in  both  patents  as  "out*  in  the  rooord  material. 

.  These  grooves  are  of  a  uniform  depth  and  width  as  is  obvious* 
Apparently  the  only  difference  between  applicant* s  tablet  as  an  , 
article  and  those  made  in  accordance  with  the  dlsolosed  methods  . 
of  the  patentees  resides  in  the  fact  that  in  applicant's  record 
groove  the  record  presents  in  cross  seatlon  an  arc  of  a.  circle 
whereas  in  the  other  structures  the  rooord  groove  may  not  be  of 
this  shape.  Whether  the  record  groove  is  arc  shaped  in  oross 
section  or  not  seems  to  be  immaterial  in  a  patent*  Is  ssnss  and 
not  patentable  over  one  that  is  angular  in  oross  ssetioa  or  one 
that  dobs  not  oonform  truly  to  the  are  shape* 

The  olalms  rejected  in  the  last  offloial  action  are  rejected 
in  view  of  the  patents  of  Jones,  Adams-pandall  and  “orliner  Deo. 
17,  1901,  No.  689350  in  Oraphophonss-T ablets. 


Case  No.. Paper  No,, 


ROOK  NO.  P.19. 


THOMAS  A.  HD  ISON 
SOUND  REOOHDS 
PILED  .TUNE  4,  1902 
SERIAL  NO.  110,160 


HON.  OCMISSIONER  OH  PATENTS, 

SIR: 

We  amend  the  above -entitle A  application  by 
erasing  the  fifth  claim  and  by  renumbering  claim  6.  We  have 
erased  the  fifth  (original  seventh)  daim,  for  the  reason 
that  aa  drawn  it  was  broad  enough,  to  cover  a  record  made 
with  a  noodle! lice  reoordor,  end  therefore  perhaps  not  fully 
distinguished  from  the  Berliner  patent.  All  the  other 
olaira  are  specifically  limited  to  a  record  employing  a  sin¬ 
uous  groove  cleanly  out  in  the  recording  material. 

We  note  that  in  rejecting  the  claims  the  Examiner 
exp  reuses  the  view  that  the  patents  to  .Tones  and  to  Adama- 
Randall  disclose  the  suggestion  of  a  cut  sinuous -groove 
record.  We  deny  the  correctness  of  the  Examiner's  premise, 
and  therefore  oaunot  accept  his  conclusion.  As  we  pointed 
out  in  our  last  argument,  the  .Tones  patent  must  bo  considered 
in  its  entirety.  The  isolated  reference  in  the  Jones  pat¬ 
ent  to  "cutting  or  engraving"  cannot  be  taken  alone,  but 
must  be  Interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  complete  disclosure. 
When,  therefore,  Jones  states  that  his  reoord  is  made  "in  a 
well-known  manner",  and  ninoe  the  common  and  ordinary  mode 
of  making  such  reoords  was,  at  the  date  of  the  Jones  patent, 
by  means  of  a  needlelike  recorder,  the  expression  "cutting 
or  engraving"  must  be  held  to  be  descriptive  of  the  notion 
of  a  needlelike  recorder.  It  certainly  cannot  be  maintained 
that  where  a  patentee  states  that  his  record  is  made  "in  a 

’cutting  or  engraving". 
Case  No../^„..Pa[)er  No„^t! 


|well -known  manner",  and  then  ref  ere  to 


that  this  constitutes  m  adequate  anticipation  of  a  raoord 
made  for  the  first  time  by  means  of  a  reoorder  having  true 
cutting  edges.  As  we  before  pointed  out,  the  expression 
"cutting  or  engraving"  in  this  very  art  has  been  used  as 
synonymous  with  a  scraping  action,,  snd  has  been  clearly  dis¬ 
tinguished  in  the  Patent  Office  from  a  cutting  action.  In 
fact,  as  we  before  Baid,  although  a  prior  patent  had  speci¬ 
fically  referred  to  "cutting  or  engraving",  yet  the  Office 
granted  a  subsequent  patent  on  a  true  cutting  aotion.  If 
the  .ToneB  patent  does  not  show  a  reoorder  oapable  of  perform¬ 
ing  a  true  cutting  operation,  then  we  submit  any  general 
reference  to "cutting  or  engraving"oaimot  be  regarded  as  an 
adequate  disclosure  of  applicant's  invention. 

So  far  as  the  patont  to  Adana -Randall  is. concerned, 
we  have  pointed  out  in  applicant's  companion  case.  Serial 
Ho.  110, 159, that  this  patent  is  entirely  insufficient,  as  a 
disclosure  of  the  invention.  We  have  shown  that  Adams- 
Randall  sought  to  improve  only  the  original  tin-foil  phono¬ 
graph,  and  in  no  instance  employed  a  cutting  tool  capable 
of  cleanly  cutting  a  sinuous  groove. 

We  hope,  therefore,  that  upon  reconsideration  the 
olaims  will  be  allowed. 

Respdotfully, 

IHOMAS  A.  EDISON, 

By _ _ 

His  Attorneys. 

Hew  York,  August  88,  1908. 


-8- 


Case  No, Paper  No,. 


United  States  Patent  Office, 


Th»"“  *•  U.  S.  PATENT  OFFICE, 

SEP  10  1902  <^T 

•  »«Tort,,E.Y.  hailed,;;  ,!Sf 

Please  finel  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  aypiimf^hx 

for  Sound-Record a, filed  June  4, 1908, aerial  number  110,160. 


MAIL  ED4 


This  action  is  in  response  to  the  amendment  filed  the 

89th  ult. 

Claims  1,  8,  S  and  4  are  rejected  again  in  view  of  the 
patents  of' Jones,  Adams -Randall  and  for  instance,  patent  of 
Edison, June  86, 1900 ,#668,456,  Souttd  Boxes,  Oraphophones,  which 
Shows  the  sound  groove  cur.vedwln'cross  eootion.'  From  ah  inspec-. 
tion  of  the  file  in. tho  Jones  patent,  it  seems  dear  that  the 
expression  "out  or  engraved*  in  said  patent  means  cut  out  or 
clehnly  out,  Just  as  the  word  *out*  has  such  moaning  in  appli¬ 
cant's  application. 

Claim  6  is  rejected  for  want  of  invention,  in  view  of 
the  patent  Of  Berliner  cited,  and  in  view  of  the  patent  of 
Vassenloh,!Tov.  11,1890 , #440,155 ,Oraphophone a. 


Cate  !'iO../s^;..Paper  No,„s>1C..t; 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON 

sound  RECORDS 

PILED  JUNE  4,  1902 
SBRIATj  NO.  110,160 
ROOM  NO.  219 

HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OR  PATENTS, 

SIR  : - 

.  Reconsideration  of  claims  1  to  4  is 
respectfully  requested.  We  have  already  given  our  views 
as  to  the  Jones  and  Adams-Randall  patents,  and  have  stated 
the  grounds  for  our  opinion  that  these  references  are  en¬ 
tirely  insufficient.  In  applicant's  companion  case  on  the 
prooess  for  making  the  improved  sound  reoords,  we  have  today- 
submitted  an  argument  pointing  out  that  the  history  of  the 
Jones  application  throws  no  additional  light  on  the  patent 
as  a  reference.  Jones  nowhere,  in  his  patent,  or  in  his 
application,  or  in  the  arguments  filed  before  the  Patent 
Offioe,  states  that  he  makes  a  sinuous  grooved  reoord  by  a 
true  cutting  operation.  Even  if  he  did  say  in  his  patent 
that  suoh  an  operation  was  performed  by  him,  the  patent 
would  still  be  insufficient  because  a  vague  suggestion  of 
this  kind  would  oertainly  not  enable  those  skilled  in  the 
art  to  oarry  it  out..  Moreover,  the  statement  in  the  patent 
that  the  Jones  record  is  made  "in  a  well  known  manner"  nega¬ 
tives  the  Examiner's  assumption  that  it  is  made  by  a  outting 
operation,  whioh  would  not  be  a  well  known  manner.  So  far 
as  the  2nd  and  4th  claims  are  concerned,  we  do  not  Bee  how 
the  new  reference  to  Edison  has  any  bearing,  since  with  that 
patent  the  reoord  is  vertically  irregular,  and  is  therefore 
not  a  groove  of  substantially  uniform  width  and  depth  with  a 
curved  oross-Bection. 


Case  No, ,/feC. Paper  No,. 


i 


Reconsideration  of  the  5th  claim  iB  also  requested, 
and  our  former  arguments  in  support  of  this  olaim  are  here 
repeated.  We  assume  that  the  patent  to  "Wassenioh"  to 
whioh  the  Examiner  refers  1b  the  patent  to  HeyBinger  already 
of  record  in  the  oaBe,  since  the  number  and  date  correspond 
to  the  Heysinger  patent. 

We  hope  that  the  olaims  may  be  allowed,  but  if  the 
Examiner  oannot  do  bo,  then  we  ask  that  final  aotion  be 
taken. 

Very  respectfully, 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON, 

By _ 

Attorneys. 


New  York,  September  17,  1902. 


Case  No./£C.  Paper  No,...£, 


DEPARTMENT  of 


INTERIOR, 


United  States  Patent  Office, 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.  OCtObST  9 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

Care  Dyer,  Edmonds  &  Dyer, 
#31  Has sau  Street, 

New  York,N.Y. 


U.  8.  PATEI-tT  OFFICE,  I 

OCT  9  1902 

MAIL  ED, 


Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 


for  Sound-Re cord a, filed  Juno  4,1902,8orial  number  110,160* 

_  .  Commissioner  of  Patents. 


This  action  is  in  response  to  the  amendment  filed  the 
18th  ultimo. 

In  the  first  place  it  must  be  held  that  the  Bell  and 
Taintor  process  of  making  an  original  record  was  a  true  cutting 
procoss.  In  the  patent  fef  Bell  and  Taintor,  May  4,1886,  #541,214, 
page  3,  linos  70-73,  the  patentee  states  that  "This  leaves  sharp 
cutting  edges  on  both  sides  of  the  tapering  point.  These  edges 
remove  the  material  in  chips  or  shavings  like  a  plane  or  turning 
tool".  Then  on  page  6,  lines  70  to  74,  the  patentee  states  -"The 
torn  cutting  is  heroin  employed  to  indicate  an  action  in  whioh 
the  material  is  removed  in  chips,  shavings,  or  small  pieces,  as 
in  engraving,  turning  and  the  like,  and  not  merely  displaced." 
These  statements  seem  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  stylus  was  a 
true  cutting  stylus  and  thatvthe  recording  process  involved  a 
true  cutting  action  and  not  a  scraping  action  as  held  by  applicant. 

This  was  the  well  known  Graphophone  "syBtem".  The  action  of 
the  examiner  in  granting  patent  #393,967  to  the  present  applicant 
notwithstanding  the  prior  patent  to  Bell  and  Tainter,  is  not 
controlling  in  this  case  whatever  may  have  been  the  reasons  of  the 
Case  No,../^.?.Paper  No,...jZ„, 


#110,160, 


Examiner  that  caused  him  to  decide  that  the  matter  claimed  in 
applicant's  patent  was  patentable  as  stated.  It  having  been 
established  that  Boll  and  Painter's  process  was  a  true  cutting 
process,  it  no w  romains  to  construe  the  meaning  of  the  term 
"cutting  or  engraving"  in  the  patent  of  Jones  cited.  The 
expression  "forming  in  a  well  known  manner"  in  the  patent,  does 
not  negative  tho  holding  that  the  record  is  formed  by  Jones  by  a 
true  cutting  out  or  shaving  process,  for  Bell  and  Taint er'e 
process  and  applicant's  patented  process  were  both  true  outting 
processes  and  these  were  the  well  known  ways  of  forming  grapho- 
phone  records  for  several  years  prior  to  the  application  of  Jonos 
and  in  fact  the  only  way  known  to  the  Examiner  in  which  up.  and 
down  or  graphophcne  sound  rocords  had  been  made  for  years  prioV 
to  the  Jones  application.  This  Boll  and  Taint  or  process  was  a 
part  of  tho  well  known  "graphophone  system"  referred  to  by  Jonos, 
p.  1,  lino  56  to  line  68  and  Jones  states  therein  that  his  process 
differs  thorefrom-by  cutting  a  latoral  record  wherein  the  resis¬ 
tance  to  the  stylus  is  uniform  , whereas  in  said  patented  rrocess 
the  resistance  to  the  stylus  isccumiSmBS  increases  with  tho  depth 
of  tho  cut,  otc.  This  outting  out  process  was  therefore  doubtless 
the  "well  known"  outting  out  or  shaving  process.  Hot  only  is  this 
doubtless  true  from  tho  evidence  of  surrounding  circumstances, and 
from  statements  in  the  Jones  patent,  but  what  Jonos  said  in 
his  argument  in  the  patented  file,  connected  with  the  prosecution 
of  tho  case  clearly  shows  that  so  far  as  tho  cutting  feature  of 
his  process  was  concerned  that  it  was  the  cutting  out  process  flf 
BgH  and  Taintor  applied  to  cut  laterally  in  the  plane  of  the 
surface  of  the  record  instead  of  vertically  in  a  plane  at  anglos  to 


the  surf  i 


of  the  record. 


Case  Noi^43L..Paper  No,..../?.... 


#110,160- 


.3.  *• 

to 

She  present  claims  1  to  4  belnc  for  the  record  as  an 
article  made  by  the  "cutting"  step  of  the  Jones  patent  ,  are  again 
and  finally  rejected  in  view  of  the  patents  oited  in  rojoctlon 
thereof  in  the  last  official  action  and  claim  5  is  rejoctad 
finally  in  view  of  the  patents  cited. 


Paper  No, 


;-V-  ■ 


ife  ,  Folio  No.  18. 


vuf  . 


Applicant. 

..£11 . sxLjZI 


.  >> 

Serial  No Jx4^ 

*2*7?  -?  /  S— 

Address. 


fi.  '  o 

,  Title.....  .  {Jit.  /V. ; ?t>3  ■ 

' '  •  ££ 


Filed  . . . v  f* 

tfL  ^uTZ/-  &-£>>■  ^-s  ,  '<?o  ¥  - 


signee  .^„. . 


Examiner’s  Room  No. 

^y 


Ass’g’t  Exed-.i^^^c^£^«fRecordedc^!^^^  :^<<^Uber<Ji>.l^?^’.  Page 
Patent  No..  '.... . _.... _  Issued _ 


LAW  OFFICES 

DYER,  EDMONDS  &  DYER. 

patenta  anO  patent  Causes. 


Petition. 


tEo  tbc  (Commissioner  of  IPatents : 

your  petitioner  ,  THOMAS  A.  KDlSOlf,  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  residing  and  having  his  post  office  address  at  Llewellyn 
Park,  Orange,  Sssex  County,  Hew  Jersey, 

PRAYS  THAT  LETTERS  PATENT  MAY  BE  GRANTED  TO  HIM  FOR  THE  XMPROVHKKHT 

IN  MmSKSIBLE  GALVANIC  BATTERIES  (case  Ho.  1075) 


SET  FORTH  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION;  AND  HE  HEREBY  APPOINTS  DYER,  EDMONDS 
AND  DYER,  REGISTRATION  NO.  2688  (A  FIRM  COMPOSED  OF  RICHARD  N.  DYER,  SAMUEL 
O.  EDMONDS  AND  FRANK  L.  DYER),  OF  NO.  31  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  HIS 
ATTORNEYS,  WITH  FULL  POWER  OF  SUBSTITUTION  AND  REVOCATION,  TO  PROSECUTE 
THIS  APPLICATION,  TO  MAKE  ALTERATIONS  AND  AMENDMENTS  THEREIN,  TO  RECEIVE 
THE  PATENT,  AND  TO  TRANSACT  ALL  BUSINESS  IN  THE  PATENT  OFFICE  CONNECTED 


& 


SPECIFICATION. 


TO  TOIOM  IT  UAY  CONCERN: 

Be  it  known  that  I,  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange,  in 
the  County  of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey,  have  invented 
a  certain  new  and  useful  IMPROVEMENT  IN  REVERSIBLE  GALVANIC 
BATTERIES,  of  which  the  following  is  a  description. 

My  invention  relates  to  new  and  useful  improvements 
in  reversible  galvanic  batteries  of  the  type  employing  in¬ 
soluble  aotive  materials  and  an  alkaline  electrolyte,  and 
the  invention  relates  particularly  to  the  employment  of  a 
new  aotive  material  in  the  make-up  of  the  oxidizable  pole. 

My  objeot  is  to  provide  a  suitable  oxidizable  material  Which 
iB  insoluble  in  the  electrolyte. 

The  Invention  resides  in  the  disoovery  that  an  oxide 
of  uranium  oan  be  electrolytioally  reduced  and  oxidized  in 
an  alkaline  solution,  and  tinder  all  conditions  of  use  will 
be  insoluble  therein,  so  that  when  opposed  by  a  suitable 
depolarizing  material  a  practioally  available  combination 
is  seoured.  The  new  material,  unlike  cadmium  for  example, 
doeB  not  pass  from  the  metallio  state  to  a  condition  of  oxi¬ 
dation  under  the  effeot  of  eleotrolytio  oxidation  and  vioo 
versa,  but  passes  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  condition  of  oxi¬ 
dation  and  vioe  versa  when  subjected  to  these  eleotrolytio 
influences.  The  improved  aotive  material  is  preferably  co¬ 
ployed  in  the  form  of  briquettes  enclosed  in  perforated  oupa 
or  pookets  oriiaped  in  position  in  supporting  plates,  as  I 
have  described  in  patents  already  granted. 

In  carrying  my  invention  into  effeot  I  take  the 
ordinary  blaok  oxide  of  uranium  of  commerce  and  thoroughly 
1 


mix  the  same  with  raioaoeous  or  flake  graphite  or  other  Inert 
flakelike  oonduoting  material  under  pressure  in  the  propor¬ 
tion  of  about  seven  parts  of  the  oxide  to  three  parts  of 
graphite,  and  this  mixture  is  then  formed  into  briquettes, 
whioh  are  inserted  into  the  pockets  of  the  oleotrode  and 
submitted  to  sufficient  pressure  to  oring?  the  pockets  se¬ 
curely  in  position  in  the  openings  of  the  grid,  as  I  havo 
already  described  and  shown  in  Letters  Patent  of  the  United 
States.  When  an  electrode  employing  an  oxide  of  uranium 
constructed  aB  explained  is  opposed  to  an  electrode  employ¬ 
ing  hydrated  oxide  of  nickel  as  the  depolarizing  material, 
the  voltage  obtained  on  disoharge  is  about  the  same  as  that 
secured  in  ray  well  known  niokel-iron  combination.  In 
oharging  the  oell  the  uranium  oxide  is  reduced  from  a  highor 
to  a  lower  stage  of  oxidation,  while  on  disoharge  a  lower 
oxide  of  uranium  is  oxidized  to  a  higher  condition  of  oxi¬ 
dation. 


Having  now  described  my  invention,  what  I  olaim  as 
new  and  desire  to  seouro  by  Letters  Patent  is  as  follows: 

1.  An  eleotrode  for  a  reversible  galvanic  battery 
employing  an  alkaline  eleotrolyte,  said  eleotrode  containing 
as  the  active  material  an  eleotrolytioally  aotive  oxide  of 
uranium,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

2.  An  electrode  for  a  reversible  galvanic  battery 
employing  an  alkaline  eleotrolyte,  said  eleotrode  containing 
as  the  aotive  material  an  eleotrolytioally  aotive  oxide  of 
uranium,  and  an  inert  flakelike  oonduoting  material  inti¬ 
mately  mixed  with  said  oxide,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

3.  An  eleotrode  for  a  reversible  galvanio  battery 
employing  an  alkaline  eleotrolyte,  said  eleotrode  containing 
as  the  aotive  material  an  eleotrolytioally  aotive  oxide  of 

2 


uranium,  and  flake  graphite  intimately  mixed  with  said  ox¬ 
ide,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

4.  In  a  reversible  galvanio  battery  employing  an 
alkaline  eleotrolyte,  the  combination  with  an  eleotrode  con¬ 
taining  an  eleotrolytically  active  compound  of  niokel,  of  a 
second  eleotrode  opposed  thereto  containing  an  eleotrolyti- 
oally  aotive  oxide  of  uranium,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

5.  In  a  reversible  galvanio  battery  employing  an 
alkaline  eleotrolyte,  the  combination  with  an  eleotrode  oon-| 
taining  an  eleotrolytioally  aotive  oompound  of  niokel,  of  a 
seoond  eleotrode  opposed  thereto  containing  an  eleotrolyti¬ 
oally  active  oxide  of  uranium  and  an  inert  flakelike  con¬ 
ducting  material  mixed  with  the  latter  oxide,  substantially 
as  set  forth. 

6.  In  a  reversible  galvanio  battery  employing  an 
alkaline  eleotrolyte,  the  combination  with  an  eleotrode  con¬ 
taining  an  eleotrolytioally  aotive  oompound  of  niokel,  of  a 
seoond  eleotrode  opposed  thereto  containing  an  eleotrolyti¬ 
oally  aotive  oxide  of  uranium  and  flake  graphite  mixed  with 
the  latter  oxide,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

reversible  galvanio  battery  employing  an 
alkaline  eleotrolyte,  the 'comb inat ion  with  an  eleotrode  oon-| 
taining  an  eleotrolytioally  active  oompound  of  niokel  and 
an  inert  flakelike  oonduoting\aterial,  of  a  seoond  eleo¬ 
trode  opposed  thereto  amj  containing  an  eleotrolytioally 
ally  as  set  forth. 

In  a  reverBiblX  galvanlO'/battery  employing  an 
alkaline  eleotrolyte,  the  oom\ination  wl^th  an  eleotrode  con¬ 
taining  an  eleotrolytioally  aotive  oompound  of  niokel  and 
flake  graphite,  of  a  seoond  eleotrode  opposed  thereto  and 
containing  an  eleotrolytioally  active)  oxide  of\ uranium,  sub-j 
stantially  as  set  forth, 


9.  In  a\reversibie  galvanic  battery  employing  an 
alkaline  eleotrolyfl^,  the  combination  with  an  electrode  con- 
taining  an  eleotrolycioally  active  compound  of  nickel  and 
an  inert  flakelike  oon^uoting  material,  of  a  Beoond  elec¬ 
trode  opposed  thereto  and  containing  an  eleotrolytioally 
aotive  oxide  of  uranium  Ad  an  inert  flakelike  conducting 
material  mixed  therewith,  Substantially  as  set  forth. 

10.  In  a  reverslbA  galvani o  battery  employing  an 
alkaline  electrolyte,  the  combination  with  an  electrode  con 
taining  an  electrolytically  aot 
flake  graphite,  of  a  seoond  electrode  oppoaed\ thereto  and 
containing  an  eleotrolytioally  aoti\e  oxide  of  uranium  and 
flake  graphite  mixed  therewith,  sub s^nti ally  as  s^t  forth. 


• — V~ 


THO’IAS  A.  EDISON ,  the  above-named 

PETITIONER,  BEING  DULY  SWORN,  DEPOSES  AND  SAYS  THAT  HE  IS  A  OitiSSSn 

of  the  United  States,  and  a  resident  of  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange, 
in  the  County  of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey} 

THAT  HE  VERILY  BELIEVES  HIMSELF  TO  BE  THE  ORIGINAL,  FIRST  AND  SOLE  INVENTOR 

of  the  naPBOVErmT  IN  HSSTEHSIBKB  OALVAN.TC  BATTERIES 


a— mi. 


SERIES  OF  1900. 


§  Washington,  D.  C., _ _ ,  19o£j-  ® 

■g  •  ^  ’  '  'S 

“  Sir:  g 

I  .  1 

3  I  have  to  aehnowledgc  the  receipt  of  the  petition ,  specification,  oath,  ancl  3 

o  3 


I  drawing  of  your  alleged  Improvement  in . . 

S' . vU’y^/f^/vttfAjsFJ/f- 


|  luith  Fifteen  Dollars  as  the  first  fee  payable  thereon.  | 


Washington ,  D.  190jL^ 


(\^'>P[A^Y\Jy.  fym/V  >  — 


«- . mi, . m.....:M-  ,  has  been  examined  and  ALLOWED. 

The  final  fct,  Twenty  Dollars,  must  maid,  and  the  Letters  Patent  bear  dato  as  of  a  dan  not  later 
than  SIX  MONTHS  from  the  time  of  tliismscnt  notice  of  allowance. 

If  the  final  fee  is  not  iiaid  withinMfll  period  the  patent  will  be  withheld,  and  pour  onlp  relief  will  be 
bp  a  renewal  of  the  application,  with  a&tionalfces,  under  the  provisions  of  Section  4807,  Devised  Statutes. 
The  Office  aims  to  deliver  patents /gpn  the  dap  of  their  date,  and  on  which  their  term  begins  to  run;  but 
to  do  thisproperlg  applicants  willed  expected  to  pap  their  final  fees  at  least  TWENTY  DAYS  prior  to  tlw 
conclusion  of  the  six  months  turned  them  bp  law.  The  printing,  photolithographing,  and  engrossing  of 
the  several  patent  parts,  prepfitutorg  to  final  signing  and  sealing,  will  consume  the  intervening  time,  and 
such  work  will  not  he  done  until  after  payment  of  the  nccessarg  fees. 

Witcn  pou  send  tlujpal  fee  pou  will  also  send,  DISTINCTLY  AND  PLAINLY  WRITTEN,  the  name 
of  the  INVENTOR  an&flTLE  OF  INVENTION  AS  ABOVE  GIVEN,  DATE  OF  ALLOWANCE  t which  is 
the  date  of  this  circulEN),  DA  TE  OF.  FILING,  and,  if  assigned,  the  NAMES  OF  THE  ASSIGNEES. 

If  pou  desire  move  the  patent  issue  to  ASSIGNEES,  an  assignment  containing  a  REQUEST  to  that, 
effect,  together  the  FEE  for  recording  the  same,  must  be  filed  in  this  Office  on  or  before  the  date  at 
.  pagmenleffiMfec. 

After  isjSl  of  the  patent  uncertified  copies  of  the  drawings  and  specifications  map  bo  purchased  at 
the  price  oAfi  oents  eaoh.  The  monep  should  aecompanp  the  order.  Postage  stamps  will  not  be 
rcceioeiL ^ 

Rcspeetfullp,  ^ 

$  Case  No,  ,/Z.PaperNo x 


0  ot  th0  IottorH  patent  to  tlio  patentee  or  lit*  agent. 


United  States  Patent  Office, 


■  Thoms  A.  Edison, 

c/o  Dyer,  Edmonds  &  Iyer, 
ITew  York,  IT.  Y. 


ITovembor  10,  1904. 


Ser.  No,  229,246,  filed  October  3, 
"Reversible  Galvanic  Batteries?. 


1902,  renewed  October  20,  1904: 

_  Commissioner  of  Patents. 


Claims  7,  8,  9  and  10  oover  specifically  a  construction  of 
an  electrode,  containing  nickel  oxide.  This  eleotrodo  should  there¬ 
fore  be  correspondingly  described  in  the  specification.  Claims 
7  to  10,  however,  set  forth  in  addition  to  the  elements  of  the  pre¬ 
ceding  claims  only  elements  that  are  old  in  the  art.  These  claims 
are  therefore  rebooted  under ..Export e  Griffith,  85  0,  ji,,  page  956,  ' 
Exports  Hi  ley  101  0.  G,.,  page  1832,.  and  in  re  Carpenter,  112  0.  G., 
page:  503. 

Applicant  should  limit  his  claims  to  the  actual  invention. 


PEI1  TI 


0  N 


To  the 

HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OR  PATENTS, 
SIR:- 


Your  petitioner,  Thomas  A.  Edison,  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  a  resident  of  Lewellyn  Park, 
Orange,  in  the  County  of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey, 
whose  postoffice  address  is  Orange,  New  Jersey,  represents 
that  on  October  3,  1902,  he  filed  an  application  for  Let¬ 
ters  Patent  for  an  IMPROVEMENT  IN  REVERSIBLE  GALVANIC  BAt| 
TERIES,  Serial  No.  125,804,  which  application  was  allowed 
November  5th,  1902,  but  that  he  failed  to  make  payment 
of  the  final  fee  within  the  time  allowed  by  law.  He  now 
makes  renewed  application  for  Letters  Patent  for  the  said 
invention  and  prays  that  the  original  specification,  • 
and  . oath  ;  may  be  used  aapa  part  of  this  application. u. 

Signed  at  Orange,  County  of  Essex  and  State  of 
New  Jersey,  this  /f’^day  of  Botober,  1904. 


•TOUTED  ST  AT  IB  PATENT  OPFICE- 


Thornas  A.  Edison, 

REVERSIBLE  GALVANIC  BATTERIES, 

Piled  October  3,  1902,  ) 

)  Room  No. 175. 

Renewed  October  20,  1904, 

Serial  No.  229,245. 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS, 

SIR:- 

We  hereby  withdraw  as  attorneys 
in  the  above  entitled  application,  and  substitute  in  our 
stead  Mr.  Prank  L.  Dyer,  Edison  Laboratory,  Orange,  New 
Jersey,  and  request  that  further  communications  in  the 
case  be  sent  to  him. 

Very  respeotfully, 

Attorneys  of  reoord. 


October  20,  1905, 


■UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OEEICE- 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

REVERSIBLE  GALVANIC  BATTERIES, 

Piled  October  3,  1902,  j  Room  No.  175. 

Renewed  October  20,  1904, 

Serial  No.  229,245. 

HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  PE  PATENTS, 

SIR:. 

In  view  of  the  Examiner's  criticism 
that  claims  7,  8,  9  and  10  differ  from  oertaln  of  the 
preoeding  claims  only  in  the  use  of  an  element  old  in 
the  art,  namely,  an  inert  flake-like  conducting  material 
such  as  flake  graphite  mixed  with  the  active  mate  rial  on 
the  positive  pole,  I  amend  hy  erasing  claims  7,  8,  9 
and  10. 

Very  respectfully, 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON, 

By 

His  Attorney. 

Orange,  N.J, 

October  20,  1905, 


IN  REMITTING  THE  FINAL  FEE  GIVE  THE  SERIAL  NUMBER  AT  THE  HEAD  OF  THIS  NOTICE, 


/ 


229,245 


Washington,  D.  G., 

Tho'aa3  A.  Edison,  Assor. 
c/o  Prank  L.  flyer, 

Edison  Laboratory, 

Orange,  H.  J. 

SIR:  Tour  APPLICATION  for  a  patent  for  an  IMPROVEMENT  IN 

Reversible  Galvanic  Batteries. 


filed,  Oct.  20,  1904.,  has  been  examined  ami' ALLOWED. 

The  final  fee,  TWENTY  DOLLARS,  most  he  paid,  and  the  Letters  Patent  hear  date  as  of  a 
day  not  later  than  SIX  MONTHS  from  the  time  of  this  present  notice  of  allowance. 

If  the  final  fee  is  not  paid  within  that  period  the  patent  will  he  withheld,  and  your 
only  relief  will  he  hy  a  renewal  of  the  application,  with  additional  fees,  under  tlu>  provisions 
of  Section  J/.897,  Revised  Statutes.  The  office  aims  to  deliver  patents  upon  the  day  of  their 
date,  and  on  whieh  their  term  begins  to  run;  hut  to  do  this  properly  applicants  will  he 
expected  to  pay  their  final  fees  at  least  TWENTY  DAYS  prior  to  the  conclusion  of  the  six 
months  allowed  them  hy  law.  The  printing,  photolithographing,  and  engrossing  of  the 
several  patent  parts,  preparatory  to  final  signing  and  sealing,  will  consume  the  intervening 
time,  and  such  work  will  not  he  done  until  after  payment  of  the  necessary  fees. 

When  you  send  the  final  fee  you  will  also  send,  DISTINCTLY  AND  PLAINLY  WRITTEN,  the 
name  of  the  INVENTOR  and  TITLE  OF  INVENTION  AS  ABOVE  GIVEN,  DATE  OF  ALLOWANCE  (which 
is  the  date  of  this  circular),  DATE  OF  FILING,  and,  if  assigned,  the  NAMES  OF  THE  ASSIGNEES. 

If  you  desire  to  have  the  patent  issue  to  ASSIGNEES,  an  assignment  containing  a  REQUEST 
to  that  effect,  together  with  the  FEE  for  recording  the  same,  must  be  filed  in  this  office  on 
or  before  the  date  of  payment  of  final  fee. 

After  issue  of  the  patent  uncertified  copies  of  the  drawings  and  specifications  may  he 
purchased  at  the  price  of  FIVE  CENTS  EACH.  The  money  should  accompany  the  order.  Postage 
stamps  will  not  he  received. 


Respectfully, 


:arefully  scrutinize  the 


$SJg=-  If  payment  is  made  by  check  or  draft,  the  credit  allowed  is  subject  to  the  collection  of  the  same. 


Folio  No.  '*• 


Serial  ^o. /Of 0^070 


Applicant. 


Title  > <~t^rcC .  (  Js*,  C  .onaS. ccU/, n&^-CLf. 

. :v  "V-  s  y 

.  Filed  (J$!cZS3£^.  -Z-S,  /Jt&X 


<Z  .Cj'erZccty’Y't/tza^^i. 

Examiner's  Room  No . 


Assignee  ...i- . <*<?-?■ 

Ass’g’t  Exec.- . :  '■>'• 


_-  y.<.  L . ^.<s....:.r^<.-:  <-y. . Clatz^z. . 

’  /  ?zr  . 

^Recorded: . A‘  /  ^<.Liber  ^  <?£  Page 


//.JO  Issued:.... 


^ . ^ 


\  ■*;->.  O'-'^djo^  1 6... . . 

2 O  f.. \ v /. f'  J&kfdfC . . .. , 


3.. .. 

4.. . 

5.. 

6.. . 

7.. . 

8.. . 

'  9,. 

10... 

11... 

•12.. 

:  13... 

14... 

■  IS¬ 


15.. . 

19.. : 

20.. . 
21... 

■  22... 

23.’.. 

24.. . 

25.. . 

26.. . 

27.. . 

28.. . 
29... 


FRANK  L.  DYER,  . 

Counsel,  ' 

ORANGE,  NEW  JERSEY. 


ACt 


Patent  No. .% <5 Issued 

'■ft'  rS, 

M f> . : .  , 

. Mh 


Ih 

:>  \  3 


16 

[§717 

\ 

. :v..  19 

20 

•  6 . . ,.>r-^rr?rrSBSt . . (3.. .... -i  21. 

^  f  *  22 

f&v  8 . IZ'V  23. 


,  '■'£ . $*£ 

ItukeJh.. . . .  .(2.^.  . tyo.  c 

.//  /Qvy%l 


. hteZ?....'../*..#  25... 


'i 

iJ 


J  V’l  I 5^  .  26  ... 

'  . ®^..^.,J.9.9.£:.....  27... 


I  1/  13  ...O^C-jk  . '"  28... 

14  „>5L ^..,.li..,.  J.ef..<>..L...  ,29... 

_  Jj|  ••  15  V^'juz<6uk*..* . 30... 

v  .  '  ■■■■■:■  J  - 


FRANK  L.  DYER, 

Counsel, 

ORANGE,  NEW  JERSEY.  . 


(j  XtZTZX  WCfce.  V/cJLr-4.  |C* 

fu^-i  -ce*  ^  ‘“Tl  *• 

Xf*-*  ,uc^ 

f  Jit:  ^XEE^  - 

c  u  \  I  fT 

Au  it—  i c—  ^ 

^  ,  -xfc  i4^-^^ 

\r~  J. 


D  J  ^ 

Tl 

/Ur^  e^^ht 


'  Aii~>  f*~ 


±r  “-u^  - 

7TT^  ^  ^ 


IG*.  .£t..»)^A  _f  u-^<t^_  ttr 
5hn  Iturt. 

^vd-  L^r-xl.- 

Xd-  upET  ^  sp ■ 

-Cfcr  ■*f~* — i  ffA4-p*~  ^  "^'"'v<rv^ 

<yJL-,^  -  — ' i~ 

"XL— 

*  —A— - -  bf  er(U-*~ 

■^tT  '-**~*'lr* 

iw  .tu,  ® ^ 


■  "  .  3 

tArfvfc.  lUL  (>~  CL&*~fi-t s>-*^ 

^wf-  k+fc*.  VUV^*.  '-“-ae 
X«.|  t" 

Y^X~  ^  rr~«  *-  -v 

-tM[.  —  ^ 

4^oc  :.£errcr  i^~  ‘-  »  °---} 


(ot^JL  t,o &~eJ2^  j^yo^  <Q  t'<~^  Q< 

~t<> 


■# 


:^ofi 


jl  -a- 


%uueucul. :  4^^  ^d  \ 

(jj'^cLr  ^Li  - — 


•pm 


[ON  BACK  OF  PRECEDING  PAGE] 


'  Foli6~No.  x  -2,7  • 

-  >..v  Applicant. 

...</;  .  &eU4.tn*S 


Serial '  No. /o’ M  O  '  T' 


Address. 

. . 


Title^yU^s^^^i/  .C&wUc^eC . -&#yr^Z<L . ..< . 

Filed  .  Examiner’s  Room  No. 


Assignee  . . 

Ass’g’t  Exec .  . .  Recorded . . Liber . . Page 

Patent  No.  ..Jo ■2’  Issued . i..9.o.iT 

ACTIONS. 

^  1  - |G . 

■2  (^yvt^uu  . .  . 

..*£. .,y. #..«?..«?. . 18 


•4  MMv«^..../.A4..>/.^.<>...y!', . 

fi  . /..!?.,«?„>S.'T,.. 

(i 

7  .  (X*vu**.(?U-iiC  /JL'fcXr.  /<&~./<?ojr 

...  in . 

..  20 . 

91 

..  22 .  Vi 

k\\l! 

8..... .  » .  »  /-i. 

..  _ 1 

pus- 

0.  . '/ . «...  -3./  ...;»  .  24. 

10  jSUJnM^C .  ....  •'  *2  4  " . 

..  2ii . : _ 

.  1  1  <S£*-U*?«-/  4 ■/..?A'ST~. 

..  20 . . 

12 . . . 

..27...... 

13_ . ._.. . . . 1 . . .  .  . • 

1 4 . ;. . 

..'is.,.,1. . . . ...: . . . .;.. . . . . 

..  30.. . 

FRANK  L.  DYER, 

_•  .  Counsel, 

Orange,  New  Jersey. 


i3:  vylA?\ 
W>/96s  :°} 

^oX^ctKcJ— <3  Xu-v^^w,, 


1 


. V*  ■ 

ij(Ji  ft 

£>vlvXXv  V  Si  (<  (kc  tUv.fnW' 

CS$  0  W»fc.  K^>  v> 

j^t-f-«X  ir&  live  U-i-^V  ^R./- 

-trrjw^ o-^-t  XXv.X^. 

UJ^ot  tr  tF^«v-cA~l_.  I  >.«-<•- 

^rfXi-*-,^  -i-f-(--‘-  Wi  U,'j 

|yf.  Cl  tvif  VAiW  -Kv-U  VVA  «A.*rd&. 


cLe^  ft-n  *" 


(^(ve.  c*  -6  p<-  l-X  t 

'  ■  Z  CQ-'A-O  VW  1C  X  £>  OJ  UA\  Lv.  q 

~  Qo^Jt-  XXX/U'  ! 


uX-o^-iXTm  ua  t(!\Q 

(P^a: rJ 


ojlct.  (A\.Lf^vJX\  C-evUO  I-O^to  IM  CV  OAjXc^-^A 
•'C^vo-Cv  uteJfvTv u .  I'^o  ela  <£>^ 
C9^v^w 

JL*i.  i.v-^— ft  -«r  • 

(1  1 


X 


4 

(j  CC>l-V< 

O-  /1< 

!.•:.. vi,^~  V 

-j'L.e.e?- 


'  p 

dLc.o  c-r  «  v 


f 


ka,  j  wv  ca>'R«~oR-/  ^  ■  ji/vp  X.6XA.Q 
c'X  Xo.vv^ZSveCKv^e 


•^.fjrvve,  .  e>- ^  LtyU 

,,cJvf  Tv  CRp  —  ^  , 

^  -0U  ; 


\*  kr’  '|X~-  c 

|)><-  P  r£x  Xr.’  Cl  • 

1|-  u^*-  "~l° 


,  rlR?  IfN^CT 


<JZTV-0  j«- 

..;-f*  C>t~y.X@~rXZc 


Sn 

~\U: 


1 


4vcC-(<..  •  f)\£  C.  <_t  *-'» 

'\v-«_.<s^x  'XE'-t,  t^oX  ■O-^  -.  A  Jy  ^(.Vf  L*^>l.w*v-(L 

U-  -  (j—  ^  ^ 

10  ue,  ~£v<*<. 

„,  „fc,:c~J  no  in  iyf  ~(f- 

|  i-  ~~ -6  <•• 

.. 

tvja,-;>.^.;  i;  £  X>  J  |-o^ 

v^rv 

-r*~~ 

6’-'— p  r  r^  p^  —  ^ 


'P>C.C^X^-C  e.»-  (rs  (2e  £>  OW^«- 

CUftU— Xu/  c->/  ^>ua_XT 

A  / 1  ,  0  J  .  • 

.  yL^T:t'X''  6-h  '-"-to  L"  ■■*,  WTO  r~ 


-ivb  our^otxt"  £t-~<r-t&. 

X  ’  >4 


.  ■  3 ; 

c*^*~  ^  ' 


C^TCfcT  Rc.'J—  Kvivv  ^e.o 

(v  O  fvru  CJ*.ijA  jLff,v-^|5  e.-v>"  f<-v— . 

-X  lir-Hri^o'rj'X- 

IU^Jecl  =— ■?  X  '~sC~  J~£ 

v.oi.-*'  w  4  -  *---■•  e.e,.:f'» 
jtw  pC  •  w* 


U^cf- !  *•«  ^t'“-  cr°r 


T 


r 


■&tr- 


Leto  -$~4 


'->-*- jo  • 


.CA.Ht, 


Oi 5“^ 

|pl  .pt-rfo 

j.-j 

f  ^  ya\\  «^<-  v.».  P'V  '-  *’  «-C  .cw' t^v 


U~ 


A 

cL 


.JZ 


yuXZSZZ^ L--uzzzr.^-xcz  J~~ac 
c^tSz  CL/— -e-,1fe  ^  ; 


.rS  CA.*..  S  uw*.  *L&*^/  *- 


v^'-t  .Iterr  - 


JTi  -cCZ 


O  eyv^a 


.0£eU-C<- 

{**...(>»  rv^0-'«A-.  •  «.'-  £.e.  '  ■*'■'■'■ t~" 

Ceu  t  <■-("£?>  i-  '■ “•« 


■=?ttv 


rl-vJ  P^y  °P*  •«“' 

,  ”CX  {,£*-<,  fc^Xt- 


7/ 


/ 


r» 

U<-o-C, j^cJL-  (L-^f 

f  •  r-  ■< 

tir  ^  u~ 

-tfc,  ^  ^ 


'?( *  j^?l£uz. 

jpt-i'C  U9  I^s-M 


— -fit 


\&  | r^Pt. 


C@~& 


'■gyo  IL  ■**-*&*/ it 

J_^n  i£?;~  -* 

■fcr+sf-t--2-/^/- 

ik;~,  C  -ctt—  *««-  ^ 
J£3i\ 

<1 


- i* 

Ce^^>  -trv~cy^~ 


.aJZXL^  .  J|n^-o-« 


a. 


A'L^  »-' - 1  ^J~t-e>~  j!i  J 

~1Lg,  T^Xc"  JPJlt  to-t-a.-*  <  ^  t**f  (*-«■ 

jp^C'^io,.  J  fe-<-ii  C.-..4C 
^P  eu  feW4~  ^  ^^-e<2-«~..  tg&—i~«) 

f.  PP  uo  p-vL  t'-e-im  "P-P-1-/  u  '•'* 

D?.,,,  XzCOL  c*j  > 

<-»  —  c^~~^t  c~^tZ^ 
k*“-~  cJu~M~^ 


1 


iu^!  — ^  — r 

L/>  -6-JC35?1  (^f^  ' 

U*  «Hje 


16  - 

tL-im.  A  Jtfczzr  ; 

<=-a  <7- 


■©*.' 


^J?--TC^A.  dUv(- 


Gu?. 


LU  -fc >*u~ ft  __ 

«££t^.  LJo-r-t-  Ui&a*~^&'X£Z 

QJU.~k-~-,  lA  ^ 

c_.  V-Pcd  <S~-*  Jr^L-*** 
v==e^(U  ea. 

irTi-tfi 


vCX'tU^  ^-tu.-&.k/ 
c^rTTCr  crrA^-- 

j^yLss/^v^^  e*-«j^--l —  J 

\Uuj  u>  vr&v~w  u\A.«u<j  -H- 

..ei.  jt^JL 


X- 


**■ 


JLuvoJvs-fl  U3  -cJ\  • 

*h-L 


oU- 

Tv^a*-/  *"---»■> 

«w-  o&s,^  tr 

l/ls^a,t-|  -=A_^> 

__-  <5  „ 

<o^0-~u++-  (f 

jJ^qprj^  tt-'. 

c^ed  C^~-^  — 


.aS^"  ^  MyT^. 


iv-  rs 


fytnZL  ua  we>uO'  '-**’*■  XtleTki.^ 

^  e^'tcr&d- 

feUodS A«p  S*^-Cte  Caj^ - 


lid 

;  u,n> 

„  ,  -  o“" 

fcr^d.  <l*®=r  Zs>->'<— ^  ( 

^.(^4  £-<^  6a^ 

CCTXd;  JtjJXx&Z Hi.  "XT'  / 
. C . p» — Id 


u 


Kc  r 


w», 

i’sK3^& 


^35^=^^-- —  w  (  v 

JU^^^XZr  ex-^&Z* 

•%.  epSEV  Id  i-J^V  (XdT" 

f[Pk.  .,  6l<2-  C5L«a-hJX^~T^  ! 


U>~  «v 


ejA^P«p>.  Cd.^A^^I 


,  - - ^  »■-  -  -  , 

Cf  v)  u>  ox.  ®«j»  tC 

jl^^ZTJL  x  t 


<ED  tU-  u^v*.-a 


'<d. 


— y  U—  vJtSJU  UU  V-  <£&r 

?*£d  '> 


.  v|!«\  y>-^-wk'"-e-0-'- '  0  y  -- 

©d^.«dd - - 

§.5.eX."Cte=t  td  ,l«  d^  t.* 


j  ^ 

,i  <]U^d&.  ^Y“Xaa«a —  ^ 

Ju,  -ev~f~ 

j££*1~  ifc^r  ^  ^ 

h^r-  j^  ^  *J 

7®Z>  £•«--  ^  ’ 

U'ts-iU.  i^i-  k— L^kV .  rxA-^> 

.  ' _  / 

3  CX'C&V  "* 


n 


t,OWtis 


£.'—  f%  rf.-’--*-^^"'  [XIZ 

WJUl  XI 


f3E^  ^ 

,S~e.  S^Cuf*  Cj  £-<&-*-«* 

€>  uo-w  ek~&-*j*s  e 


hrr^vJ  ^  ar^rt  j  UL*~e^k  CL&n$Z*Lt > 
(§^^f  uLg.  6-/ 1  ct-f'i-A-  Lo  t«^ 

i  <« Q_ 

t  *~a  ^  «  U-o-f" 

^fa**~*  Arv--^-. ^t" 

£,  e.o^W^EZ  ^c^  rfc 


<&«> 

c  &-'> 

X^  X"~  -  ^ . &-r(L  (L_c.~-o\  e-vv-} 

y^r>  *  *&-JU*, 

*t~£  \S>'£  ^  CXXo  ^ 

o  ft  ®>'^*^vr 


Qe»  Y^^-®'"’- 

fjtez$r’»*~,l  ^ 

‘■'yo^er-v  0-*n^  o 

Qo  <^o 


H; 


) 


ft 


^.."(SjK-— <'-€.  ^s~ 

\vLcC  — (^“tix  A=~-<p_ 


Jt 

Y  i-v»  as  X<*fe«®  tCT  ®||^ 

jbrs^SrMve  I'iufV-. 

-tfcrA~~-  'X  e£*  "^fX 

ufftfcfc  o-  - eA^' 

^L^-  ,,  ““'r:-  r  ~  LX-a-~  V*  l^A-* 

uitetr 


f‘L^ 


vt 

l>vJ~  'TV 

<-k  l-wX  ^  \  “U  ^1 

^rCJ  &% 

e^'^ST  Kt‘c~ 

j^^L.  ^  tVuva^-w-n  ^-c^'^-v^CieXcXv, |  . 

p-oW  trvu«.  €  ^ 

RxJ  ttxr*.  “ts  4«- 

cstE . ©Jsijs-O'K  *w-  — ^J“”1  1  1  “'^ 

6^— (  ^ 

ft  rit 

'  *  '  ft  ■“'  *" 


V/ 


£  fcfc^  1M-P  <»-**«  rv»-  j^  cx  C>(A  *vu 

— &tj 


£J^p£L&> 


c(?Cb  2-k»  -~wTT-^fS4 


^X-. 

qJL^XL-  ^«->,.c.  «>“<-* 
--^pnic  "^T-  kn-^a-" 

*6 


£/5»-€>~<s' 

'V\A-‘OhTw<ii» 

_4sX  TC3-* 


■fr 


LaaX»"  2-A-A— 


fipX  . y'CJh. 

Q,C>  C..'^ 

•2-p-vva.  >-UtttU  4-~“^  ■f” 


jrf  KA—afVffo,  ^£J’’ 


L-OXC. «v. 


jL^res  *—*i  *Zd>“t'MS 

UJsh  -tc^-^4^^ 


LJSb  U 

uiriU-^  ^£~*~5f'r 

^  ~  ^o^-— 


cLtezz*  «t 

Cl-a*  v^-'t/k^t 

.4.,^  ^  - 

vt'Wh^^'^'^6^  |^fi-p^4rk  TK«- 

$lJ$H+-QL.  e*^V 

a „Tfc=erTE  wkr4, 
w=Cfcv~.  IU  I MW~| 

U-  tffy''^  lAf'V 

Jf  =(-.  u5JjL‘  ^  C.f^aX«v* 


%< 


fD  't.-t'TVvv 

„  .  ^  jL<£>^\ 

Q  tv  rvv.f  ft  & 

u-e.  (At-  *s  ..^we 

6~-f 

<|  uj?-  A  P-«-~.r-*j  {.  "c™^l" 

p-p>eje^  a^t^-d  kt.^ 

£Cd  uo  'KiJwi 

tfL-erv^u*-  (&-*-*-^~  ®"S 

glA^y* 

a-  -^-ff , 

qJj^  ^ 

j  1/v^a^*L.  Ge/v JU  fcvG£tJ 

irtn  is*~A  ( 
u  H^p'i  ^  e^e  t\ 

! 


July  5th, 1905. 


Edward  Dinan,  Esq., 

c/o  Edison  Portland  cement  Company, 
Ste vartsville ,  N.J. 


Dear  Mr.  Dinan 


Your  favor  of  the  17th  ult.  with  enclosures, 
were  duly  received,  and  I  am  very  much  obliged  to  you  for  the 
careful  mamner  in  which  you  have  gone  into  the  matter.  1  am  now 
in  a  position  to  go  right  ahead  with  the  kiln  case,  and  would 
like  to  know  whether  it  would  he  possible  for  you  to  spend  two 
or  three  days  at  Orange  with  me,  in  order  that  I  might  have  the 
benefit  of  your  experience.  Of  course,  if  it  would  be  inconveni¬ 
ent  for  you  to  leave  Stewartsville ,  I  can  do  as  much  work  as 
possible  here  and  then  go  up  to  Stewartsville  and  spend  a  day 
going  over  the  papers  with  you.  Let  me  know  about  this  right 
away.  Have  you  been  able  to  determine  the  stack  temperature  of 
the  Edison  kiln?  We  should  have  this  information  before  taking 
up  the  case  for  final  action. 

Yours  very  truly, 


eld/aek. 


TRe  Edison  Portland  Cement  ( q . 

Telegraph  and  Passenger  Station,  NEW  VILLAGE,  N.  J. 

P.  O.  Address,  STEWARTSVILLE,  N.  J. 

July  7,  1905. 


lo:  stack  temperature: 


Mr.  E.  I,.  Dyer, 

Edi  s  on  Lab  orator  y, 

Orange,  N.  J. 

Dear  Sir:- 


I  have  your  favor  of  the  5th  relative  to  the  kiln  matter.  Under 
the  present  circumstances  at  our  plant  here,  I  find  that  it  is  practically 
impossible  for  me  to  get  away  any  time  in  the  near  future. 

I  would  suggest,  if  possible-,  you  work  up  the  case  and  then 
if  you  Could  arrange  to  c erne  to  Stewartsville ,  where  we  can  go  over  the 
matter,  1  will  have  ready  and  accessable  am  Information  and  literature 
on  the  subject.  As  it  is  now,  I  am  working  over  time  almost  every  day 
and  it  is  practically  impossible  for  me  to  leave  for  any  length  of  time 
as  you  suggest. 

Concerning  the  stack  temperature,  as  far  as  we  have  gone  into  the 
matter,  I  have  determined  that  under  good  working,  Edison  kilns  show  temper 
ature  at -the  base  of  the  stack  of  about  lOOO^B1.  to  1100°E.  This  will  be 
lower  with  the  use  of  finer  coal  towards  which  we  are  working,  as  under 
good  working  with  only  fairly  fine  coal,  we  have  noted  recently 
temperatures  as  895°,  995°,  arid  905°E. 

The  average  of  all  our  observations  figure's  1097 °E.  and  this 
includes  some  taken  under  very  unfavorable  conditions.  In  fact,,  we  took 
some  temperatures  at  times  merely  to  see  hov;  poorly  the  kiln  was  working.  / 
As  an  instance ,  yesterday  we  were  forced  to  use  very  coarse  coal.? 


.2.. July  7,  1905, 


The  coarse  particles  being  hi  own  into  the  kiln  soon  pass  so  far  In  that 
they  are  burned  to  CO  only,  which  later  burns  to  CO2,  when  mixing  with 
the  air  drawn  in  at  the  stack  base.  This  develops s  a  high  heat  and  the 
temperature  proved  to  be  1700°F.  With  normally  fine  coal  this  combustion 
would  take  place  within  the  kiln.  I  cite  this  to  show  you -what  •fine  coal 
has  to  do  with' the  case. 

Vie  are  safe  in  assuming  that  with  normally  fine  coal  under- 
normal  working  the  stack  temperature  will  be  under  1000°!’. ,  if  not  under 
900*^. 


1  hope  you  can  arrange  to  egjjjid  a  day  at  Stewartsville ,  as 
I  believe  under  the  circumstances  it  is  the  best  thing  to  do  as  exjjlained 
above . 


Yours  very  truly, 


(sS ' 


Edward  Di nan,  Esq., 

c/o  Edison  Portland  Cement  Company, 

Stev/artsville,  H.J. 

Dear  Mr.  Dinan:- 

Your  favor  of  the  7th  inst.  has  been 
received,  and  1  appreciate  fully  the  embarrassment  which  would, 
he  caused  by  your  leaving  Stev/arfcsville  at  this  time,  and  I 
will,  therefore,  arrange  to  do  as  much  work  as  possible  at 
Orange  and  go  over  the  papers  with  you  at  S'tewartsville  Borne 
time  later. 

1  thank  you  very  much  for  your  information  regard-  ; 
ing  stack  temperatures. 


fid/ark. 


Yours  very  truly, 


i.  f 


tK-C-Ct^c.sl. 


_ v 


. C  .. 

'4 

-PA 

y  ■ 

\-j 

O'  P-- 

.  / . . 

>  V 

-/Lc.-A  fL 

f  CL 

<PPi~. 

tS  ' 

It,,-, Ay.,* 

jb-tcc 

7y  fits  & jg^c. 

t-Pl  ^ 

«^- 

.  _  ; 

/UjfSA  s/a/Lf  3/2. 

Vf?- 

+.?:  ~ 

Serial  Nn.  / S>  V  <?  ' 


..</•  . ^ ' &£von<,  \^o  'ofyj  _ 


Examiner’s  Room  No.  «^<g<T _ 


t  -  7.  /?o  3 _ 1 6 _ . 

2 jj^gsgSfe-^kliiZj....^  ^  3 /./?(,  &  j  7 _ 

. 'ff-e* - </,  /  fo^i  1  8 _ 

4 _ a.^,  /$>o  4.  |  g _ 


FRANK  L.  DYER, 

•  Counsel,  ■■!-•■_ 

Orange,  New  Jersey; 


0 


. 

®  LAW  OFFICES 

DYER,  EDMONDS  &  DYER. 

patents  ana  patent  aaueea. 

Petition. 


Go  tbc  Commissioner  of  IPatents : 

your  petitioner  THOMAS  A.  BDISOIT,  a  citizen  of  tho  United^ 
States,  residing  and  having  his  post  offioe  address  at  Llewellyn 
Park,  Orange,  County  of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey, 

PRAYS  THAT  LETTERS  PATENT  MAY  BE  GRANTED  TO  HIM  FOR  THE  IMPROVEMENT 

IN  PORTLAND  CEMENT  AND  PROCESS  OF  MANUFACTURING  THE  SAME  (Case 

No.  1087) 


SET  FORTH  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION ;  AND  HE  HEREBY  APPOINTS  DYER,  EDMONDS 
AND  DYER,  REGISTRATION  NO.  2888  (A  FIRM  COMPOSED  OF  RICHARD  N.  DYER,  SAMUEL 
O.  EDMONOS  AND  FRANK  L.  DYER),  OF  NO.  31  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  HIS 
ATTORNEYS,  WITH  FULL  POWER  OF  SUBSTITUTION  AND  REVOCATION,  TO  PROSECUTE 
THIS  APPLICATION,  TO  MAKE  ALTERATIONS  AND  AMENDMENTS  THEREIN,  TO  RECEIVE 
THE  PATENT,  AND  TO  TRANSACT  ALL  BUSINESS  IN  THE  PATENT  OFFICE  CONNECTED 
THEREWITH. 


■'p'fTnR1: . a. . ■firriTRftw: 


SPECIFICATION. 


(TO'  WHOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN: 

I  Be  it  known  that  I,  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  oitizen  of 

the  United  States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange,  in  the 
County  of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey,  have  invented  a  cer¬ 
tain  new  and  useful  IMPROVEMENT  IN  PORTLAND  CEMENT  AND  PRO¬ 
CESS  OP  MANUFACTURING  THE  SAME,  of  which  the  following  ia  a 
specification: - 

My  invention  relates  to  improvements  in  Portland 
oement  and  process  of  manufacturing  the  same  and  my  Object  ii 
to  produce  a  Portland  cement  v/hidi  shall  he  of  a  uniform 
and  definite  chemical  composition  having  reliable  and  per¬ 
fectly  controlled  characteristics  us  well  as  superior  cement¬ 
ing  properties.  In  all  satisfactory  Portland  cements  as  now 
made,  the  clinker  produoed  from  the  kilnB  contains  a  certain 
percentage  of  anhydrous  lime,  due  to  the  foot  that  the  heat 
reactions  are  arrested  at  a  point  just  short  of  fully  com¬ 
bining  all  the  alkaline  with  the  aoid  constituents  of  the 
mixture,  and  also  to  the  fact  that  the  original  mixtures 
are  not  properly  mixed  or  ground  fine  enough  to  permit  of 
perfeot  ohemioal  oombi nations  by  the  present  methods  of  cal¬ 
cination  in  kilns.  The  principal  souroe  of  the  anhydrous 
free  lime  in  the  usual  clinker  is  due  to  tho  fact  that  all 
parts  are  not  subj  eoted  to  a  heat  of  sufficient  temperature 
or  for  a  Ipng  enough  period  or  for  both  reasons  to  effect  a 
perfeot  combination.  As  a  matter  of  fact, it  is  not  desir¬ 
able  in  the  present  methods  of  making  Portland  oement  that 
the  ol inker  should  be  so  perfectly  burned  as  to  contain  no 
free  anhydrous  lime,  sinoe  manufacturers  have  found  by  ex¬ 
porters  that  such  a  cement,  i.  e. ,  one  containing  no  free 
anhydrous  lime,  is  not  only  very  difficult  and  expensive  to 


grind,  with  the  machinery  now  used  hut  the  oement  produced 
when  properly  limed  and  ground  to  the  usual  fineness  sets 
with  such  rapidity  that  it  cannot  he  handled  or  used  in 
praotioe,  and  this  is  true  even  if  the  attempt  he  made  to 
retard  setting  of  the  oement  hy  adding  a  small  quantity  of 
burned  gypsum  as  is  now  done  to  retard  the  setting  of  hy¬ 
draulic  oements  generally. 

Consequently,  the  aim  of  manufacturers  has  been  to 
produce  in  their  kilns  a  olinker  of  a  poouliar  oharaoter 
which  is  neither  burnt  at  too  high  or  too  low  a  temperature 
and  which  has  neither  been  subjected  to  the  heat  for  too 
long  or  too  Bhort  a  time,  all  of  whioh  depends  upon  the  eye 
and  skill  and  judgment  of  the  person  in  charge  of  the  kiln. 
With  such  a.  clinker  experience  proveB  that  the  ground  cemeir; 
produced  therefrom  will,  in  most  cases,  have  certain  charac¬ 
teristics  as  to  ultimate  strength  and  time  of  setting,  but 
there  is  no  assured  oertainty  as  to  these  factors  since  the 
process  depends  for  its  suocess  upon  the  skill  and  judgment 
of  the  individual  burner. 

In  the  United  States,  most  of  the  Portland  oement 
produoed  is  burned  in  rotary  kilnB  and  the  clinker  so  ob¬ 
tained  consists  physically  of  balls  varying  in  Bize  from  tv» 
inohes  in  diameter  to  one-sixteenth  of  an  inch  or  Iobs  in 
diameter.  These  olinker  bolls  are  formed  in  the  kiln  at  an 
early  stage  of  the  process  and  in  passing  towards  the  hotter 
zones  of  the  kiln  become  semi-fused  and  more  dense,  in  some 
instances  forming  masses  due  to  the  agglomeration  of  balls  o:? 
smaller  size.  During  the  burning  process  the  aoid  contents 
of  the  mixture  gradually  combine  with  the  alkaline  contents, 
but  on  account  of  the  varying  sizes  of  the  clinker  bolls  all 
are  not  burnt  equally  throughout  and  many  of  these  balls  hav  > 

-2- 


interior  portions  Which  do  not  reaoh  a  sufficient  tempera¬ 
ture,  during  the  relatively  short  time  of  their  passage 
through  the  kiln,  as  to  permit  of  a  perfect  combination  of 
their  acid  and  alkaline  constituents.  In  the  case  of  the 
larger  olinker  balls  the  outside  portions  are  properly  clink* 
ered  and  the  necessary  chemical  combinations  have  been  ef¬ 
fected;  further  towards  the  center,  for  a  section  of  greater 
or  lesser  depth,  according  to  the  clinkering  oortfitions  and 
the  size  of  the  balls,  a  partial  combination  has  been  ef¬ 
fected  and  the  material  is  hard;  finally  at  the  center  of 
many  of  the  clinker  balls  the  material  is  still  soft  and 
flourlike  in  quality  and  soaroely  any  combination  has  taken 
place.  When  olinker  of  this  sort  is  finely  ground,  the 
soft  centers,  in  which  little  or  no  ohemical  combination  has 
been  effected,  are  reduced  to  a  fine  powder  or  flour  con¬ 
taining  anhydrous  lime,  vhioh,  on  exposure  to  moisture-laden 
air  in  transit  to  or  within  the  stock  house,  becomes  hydrate! 
and  therefore  non-esqmnsive.  The  presence  of  a  small  pro¬ 
portion  of  hydrated  lime  is  necessary  in  satisfactory  Port¬ 
land  cement  in  order  to  retard  the  rapidity  with  whioh  the 
latter  sets.  In  the  case  of  the  semi-burnt  portions  of 
the  clinker  balls,  these  also  oontain  free  anhydrous  lime 
and  when  ground  result  in  the  formation  of  a  mixture  of  fine 
flourlike  particles  and  finely  divided  more  or  less  crystal¬ 
line  grains,  whioh  latter,  in  course  of  time,  absorb  water, 
causing  the  anhydrous  lime  to  beoome  hydrated,  resulting  in 
the  swelling  and  disruption  of  the  oonorete  in  which  the  oe* 
ment  is  used.  The  semi-burnt  portion  of  the  olinker  is  in 
oonsequenoe  an  ingredient  of  great  danger  on  account  of  thif 
slow  expansive  action,  Whioh  may  require  months  or  even  a 
year  or  two  to  become  effective.  The  outer  shells  of  the 
olinker  balls  on  account  of  their  superior  hardness  produce 

-3- 


very  little  flour  with  the  usual  grinding;  machinery,  aid 
generally  form  the  hulk  of  the  coarse  part  of  the  cement. 

Hence,  manufacturers  of  Portland  oement  use  the  greatest 
oare  to  produce  clinker  v/hioh  will  have  the  same  proportion 
of  hydrated  lime  when  ground  and  aerated,  and  a  minimum  am¬ 
ount  of  the  hard,  uriburnt  or  transition  olinkor  containing 
anhydrous  lime  in  a  dangerous  physical  condition.  In  order 
to  produce  a  olinker  of  this  peculiar  character,  it  is  very 
lecessary,  as  I  have  already  explained,  to  keep  the  tempera¬ 
ture  within  narrow  limits  and  to  depend  upon  the  long  exper¬ 
ience,  skill  and  judgment  of  the  operator  in  charge  of  the 
kiln.  Even  When  the  greatest  care  is  exercised,  the  varia¬ 
tions  in  the  character  of.  the  burnt  clinker  are  so  great 
that  the  daily  product  of  the  some  establishment  frequently 
differs  within  quite  wide  limits. 

I  have  devised  grinding  and  screening  maohinery  by 
whioh  the  hardest  burned  clinker  can  be  economically  ground 
to  great  fineness  and  have  described  the  same  in  my  patents 
No.  637,327,  dated  November  21st,  1899,  No.  648,934,  dated 
May  8th,  1900,  No.  671,316,  dated  April  2nd,  1901,  No.  6  71,- 
317,  dated  April  2nd,  1901,  and  No.  679,600,  dated  July  30th, 
1901,  and  I  have  also  devised  improvements  in  kilns  whereby 
the  perfect  burning  of  a  cement  mixture  oan  be  effected 
without  any  previous  skill  or  judgment  on  the  part  of  the 
kiln  attendant,  so  that  the  product  shall  contain  no  anhy¬ 
drous  lime  and  be  practically  constant  throughout,  with  the 
same  characteristics}  being,  in  fact,  pure  Portland  oement. 

.  The  kiln  referred  to  I  describe  in  an  application  for  paten  1, 

(  filed  &££%£&&& 

In  oarrying  my  present  invention  into  effect,  I  so 
proportion  the  lime  to  the  aoid  ingredients  of  the  mixture 
as  that  there  shall  always  be  a  slight  excess  of  aoid  over 


the  lime,  to  insure  the  ohemioal  combination  of  all  the  lime. 
In  the  kiln  I  bum  the  ingredients  for  a  longer  time  and  at 
a  higher  heat  than  usual,  whereby  the  vitrification  is  car¬ 
ried  further  than  1b  now  customary,  no  that  the  whole  of 
the  clinker  shall  always  be  thoroughly  and  completely  vit¬ 
rified.  ^Ehis  is  more  easily  attained  with  a  higher  than  j 
with  a  lower  stage  of  burning,  for  the  reason  that  when  the 
lime  is  in  a  proportion  to  leave  a  small  peroent  of  acid 
present  in  the  resulting  clinker,  the  melting  point  of  the  j 
clinker  is  very  high  and  its  perfect  vitrifioation  can  be  / 
carried  out  thoroughly  without  entirely  melting  it,  as  the 
range  of  temperature  between  the  points  whore  the  clinker  / 
molts  and  is  perfectly  vitrified  is  vary  considerable.^)  By 
using  a  kiln  of  abnormal  length  and  diameter,  furnished  with 
a  cl inker ijg  acne  of  about  four  times  the  length  of  clink- 
Bring  zones  now  employed,  with  a  load  of  material  from  five 
to  seven  times  that  which  is  customarily  used,  the  material 
in  the  kiln  is  perfectly  mixed  and  is  evenly  burned  through¬ 
out,  so  that  a  perfectly  safe  and  reliable  clinker  is  ob¬ 
tained,  having  always  the  same  definite  composition  and 
characteristics  and  requiring  no  previous  Bklll  on  the  part 
of  the  kiln  attendant.  When  clinker  of  this  oharaoter  is 
ground  to  oement  it  has,  if  used  alone,  properties  whioh  v 
render  it  useless  for  purposes  for  which  oement  is  ordinari-7 
ly  used,  for  the  reason  that  it  absorbs  from  forty  per  cent 
to  fifty  per  oent  of  its  weight  of  water,  aooording  to  the 
fineness  of  grinding,  to  make  it  sufficiently  plastio.  When 
30  employed  the  pure  completely  burned  clinker  sets  in  two 
or  three  minutes,  and  this  is  true  even  when  the  usual  am¬ 
ount  of  burned  gypsum  is  added.  I  find,  in  fact,  that 
burned  gypBun  has  but  little  effeot  on  pure  clinker  oement 
in  retarding  the  time  in  whioh  it  sets.  If,  however,  in 
addition  to  the  usual  proportion  of  burnt  gypsum,  from  one 
-  - _ _ _ _ , _ ' _ -8-  _ '  . . . 


to  two  per  cent  or  more  of  dry  hydrate  of  lime  is  added  to 
the  cement,  according  to  the  fineness  of  grinding,  the  re¬ 
sulting  mixture  sets  slowly,  depending  upon  the  quantity  of 
the  lime  so  added,  and  it  possesses  all  the  ingredients  and 
characteristics  of  the  regular  oommeroiol  Portland  cement. 

My  improved  cement  is,  however,  superior  to  the  hydraulic  oe- 
ment  now  made  inasmuch  as  it  is  of  greater  strength  and  con¬ 
tains  no  expansive  ingredients,  like  anhydrous  lime  in  the 
hard  particles  which  in  time  results  in  the  destruction  of 
any  Portland  cement  containing  it.  The  advantage  of  pro¬ 
ducing  in  the  first  instance  a  definite,  pure  and  reliable 
Portland  cement  clinker,  and  afterwards  adding  a  known  am¬ 
ount  of  a  necessary  ingredient,  such  as  hydrate  of  lime,  to 
retard  the  setting  operation,  instead  of  trying  to  produce 
a  oomplete  cement,  containing  a  sufficient  amount  of  anhy¬ 
drous  lime  in  the  original  clinker  in  a  state  to  permit  of 
easy  grinding  as  well  aB  to  allow  it  to  become  hydrated  by 
exposure  to  the  air,  is  very  great,  since  with  my  invention.’, 
a  definite  ohemioal  combination  is  secured,  having  reliable 
and  perfectly  controlled  characteristics,  as  well  as  super¬ 
ior  oementing  properties.  On  the  other  hand,  with  present 
prooesseB,  the  product  is  inconstant  and  uncertain,  and  re¬ 
quires  the  greatest  oare  on  the  part  of  the  manufacturers 
to  secure  a  commercially  reliable  and  thoroughly  even  re¬ 
sult.  Moreover,  by  reason  of  my  improvement  a  finished 
product  is  seoured  in  the  first  instance,  which  requires  no 
aerating  or  "aging"  to  make  it  commercially  acceptable  as 
with  present  prooesseB,  and  for  this  reason  X  am  enabled  to 
effeot  a  further  and  very  considerable  economy  in  the  manu¬ 
facture. 


-6- 


Having  now  described  my  invention,  what  I  olaim  as 
jnewtherein  and  desire  to  seouro  by  Setters  Patent  is  as 
follows : - 

____  1,  Portland  cement  clinker  having  the  following? 

//  ,  ii  't&n+.'KiWBi* 

;3?.£>./'70“j|proportieo:  (1)  absorbing  a  larger  amount  of  water  than 

'jprwtrdrt  to  obtain  equal  plasticity,  (2)  being  substantially 

red  gypsum,  and  (3) 
by  gypsum  and  slaked 


iunaffeoted  as  to  its  setting  tine  by  bj 
i  ing  controlled  as  to  its  sotting  tim 


2,  An  improved  Portland  or.  hydraulic  cement,  com¬ 
prising  oourpletely^ulne^ cement  clinker  free  of  anhydrous 
lime,  and  hydrated  lime  mixed  with  the  olinker,  substantial¬ 
ly  aB  set  forth. 

3'.  An  improved  Portland  or  hydraulic  cement,  oom- 

t  rising  oompletoly(bumod)  cement  clinker  free  of  anhydrous 
ime  and  to  which  is  added  a  non-expansive  ingredient  which 
[[retards  sotting,  substantially  as  sot  forth. 

^  4„  An  improved  Portland  or  hydraul ic  oement,  com¬ 
prising  completely  burned  ceraont  clinker  free  of  anhydrous 
lime,  with  burned  gypsum  and  hydrated  lime  added  thereto, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

\  5.  An  improved  ingredient 'for  use  in\the  manufact¬ 

ure  Portland  or  Mydraulio\ oement,  obmprising\ completely 
burned  oement  o linker  free  of\anhydrous  lime,  substantially 
as  set  forth. 

£  jf.  An  improved  Portland  or  hydraulio  oement,  com¬ 
prising  completely  (burned) cemant  olinker  free  of  anhydrous 
lime  and  having  a  preponderance  of  acid  ingredients,  and  a 
material  added  thereto  to  retard  setting,  a  Tibs  tan  tially  as 
set  forth. 

An  improved  Portland  or;hydraulio  cement,  com¬ 
prising  completely  (bume^ cement  olinker  free  of  anhydrous 
lime  and  having  a  preponderance  of  acid  ingredients,  and 


hydrated  lime  added  thereto,  substantially  aB  set  forth. 

^  X'  An  imp  roved  Portland,  or  hydraulic  cement,  com¬ 
prising  completely  burned  cement  clinker  free  of  anhydrous 
lime  and  having  a  preponderance  of  acid  ingredients,  and 
burned  gypnum  and  hydrated  lime  added  thereto,  substantial¬ 


ly  as  set  forth. 

\  9.  An  ingredient  for  use  in  the  manufacture  of 

[Portland  or  hydraulic  orient,  consisting  \f  completely  burnedj 


oement\ol inker  free  of  a^Wdrous  lime  nXd  haviig  a  prepon¬ 
derance '''of  acid  ingrodienr? ,  substantially  ah  set  forth. 

t  The  process  of  manufacturing  Portland  cement, 

| which  oonsists  in  completely  burning  cement  olinkor  so  as  to  I 
eliminat^’lfreo  anhydrous  lime;  and  in  then  adding  to  the  cemeht 
clinker  a  material  which  retards  the  setting,  substantially 
as  set  forth. 

The  process  of  manufacturing  Portland  cement, 
which  consists  in  completely  timing  cement  clinker  to  elim-  | 
inate  free  anhydrous  lime  end  in  then  adding  hydrated  lime 
to  the  clinker,  substantially  as  sot  forth. 

^  JO  ygj.  The  process  of  manufacturing  Portland  oement, 
whloh  consists  in  completely  burning  oement  clinker  to  elim-| 
inate  free  anhydrous  lime  and  then  adding  hydrated  lime  and  | 
burned  gypsum,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

The  process  of  manufacturing  Portland  cement, 
whidi  consists  in  completely  burning  a  cement  mixture  having| 
ah  excess  of  acid  so  os  to  result  in  the  production  of 
clinker  having  an  excess  of  acid  ingredients  with  no  anhy¬ 
drous  lime, and  in  then  adding  to  the  olinker  a  material  whiiojh 
retards  the  setting,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

f %^C.  The  process  of  manufacturing  Portland  oement, 

which  consists  in  completely  burning  a  oement  mixture  having! 
an  excess  of  aoid  so  as  to  result  in  the  production  of  olitfcj- 


er  having  an  excess  of  acid  ingredients  with  no  anhydrous 
lime,  and  in  then  adding  to  the  clinker,  hydrated  lime  to 
retard  the  setting,  sUbBtant  ially  as  set  forth. 

^  1 3  The  process  of  manul'aoturing  Portland  cement, 

which  oonsiBts  in  oompletely  burning  a  cement  mixture  having 
an  excess  of  acid  so  as  to  result  in  the  production  of  clink¬ 
er  having  an  excess  of  aoid  ingredients  with  no  anhydrous 
lime,  and  in  then  adding  hydrated  lime  and  burned  gypsum 
thereto,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


-9- 


THIS  SPECIFICATION  SIGNED  AND  WITNESSED 


13tll  DAY  OF  UOV. 


. THOS. . A. . EDISON. 

Wlltness: 

i . PRANK  L.-DYBR. . 

2. ; J.  S’. RANDOLPH . 


Oath 


State  of 
Count?  of 


New  Jersey 
Essex 


THOMAS  A»  EDISON  ,  the  above-named 

PETITIONER,  BEING  DULY  SWORN,  DEPOSES  AND  SAYS  THAT  HE  IS  A  OltiZGn 

of  the  United  Staten,  and  a  resident  of  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange, 
County  of  Essex,  State  of  New  Jersey; 


THAT  HE  VERILY  BELIEVES  HIMSELF  TO  BE  THE  ORIGINAL,  FIRST  AND  SOLE  INVENTOR 

of  the  IMPROVEMENT  IN  PORTLAND  CEMENT  AND  PROCESS  OP  MANUPACT- 
URING  THE  SAME 


DESCRIBED  AND  CLAIMED  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION;  THAT  HE  DOES  NOT 
KNOW  AND  DOES  NOT  BELIEVE  THAT  THE  SAME  WAS  EVER  KNOWN  OR  USED  BEFORE 
HIS  INVENTION  OR  DISCOVERY  THEREOF;  OR  PATENTED  OR  DESCRIBED  IN  ANY 
PRINTED  PUBLICATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA  OR  ANY  FOREIGN  COUNTRY 
BEFORE  HIS  INVENTION  OR  DISCOVERY  THEREOF,  OR  MORE  THAN  TWO  YEARS  PRIOR 
TO  THIS  APPLICATION;  OR  IN  PUBLIC  USE  OR  ON  SALE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  FOR 
MORE  THAN  TWO  YEARS  PRIOR  TO  THIS  APPLICATION,  AND  THAT  NO  APPLICATION 
FOR  FOREIGN  PATENT  HAS  BEEN  FILED  BY  HIM  OR  HIS  LEGAL  REPRESENTATIVES  OR 
'ASSIGNS  IN  ANY  FOREIGN  COUNTRY. 


SWORN  TO  AND  SUBSCRIBED  BEFORE 

[SEAL! 


. . . mos.  A.  EDISON.. . ; . . 

ME  THIS  13  th  day  of  Noyr.  1902. 

_ _ J. . P...  RANDOLPH . . 

NOTARY  PUBLIC. 


Folio  28, 


2.  A  improved  Portland  or  hydraulic  cement,  compris¬ 
ing  completely  vitrified  but  unfused  cement  clinker  free 
||  anhydrous  lime^and  hydrated-.lime.-mixed  with  .the  clinker, 
substantially  as  set -forth.;  _ : _ 

— ’ - a". - The  process  of  manufacturing  cement  which  con- 

-sist s -in  -calcining  Portland  -cement  materialfr;§p to ^  gro- 
due e  c ompletely  vitrified_  but  'unfusecL  cljnk^r,  pooling  and 
pulverizing  said  clinker  and  adding  thereto  a  material 


which  retards  the'  /  of  said  pulverized  clinker,  substan¬ 
tially  as  set  forth. 


o.2m*  ■ 


OEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  o.  C.  .Tan.  7,  1008. 

Fionas  A.  J?dison,  j  v^.  /o^b  ,  ' 

a/a  Dyer,  F.dmonds  &  Dyer,  j 

aB»l  Hassau  "t. ,  |  ~c>~  u,  | 

Please  find  Hlfow  aeSmviZn&ion.  from  the  EXAMINER  in.  charge  of  your  application, 

-  mfl  W9(1  Tlof,.  b  190?..  For  PORTLAND  OJBSWT  &  FRO- 

fier.iio.  184,oib.  Filed  JW0*  n»  ^  nMns  0p  JIANTJFAOTTTR Did 

TKF.  SA’tR. 


^  tA  . 


This  application  has  Leon  examined. 

Paya  4,  line  28,  the  serial  number  of  the  application 
should  "ha  inserted. 

Ola 1)1  1,  line  5,  insert  burned  before  gypsum.  Line  8, 
substitute  "at.  present"  by  those  Known  prior  to  my  invention  or 
insert  olinhers  kno^m  lief  ore  "at". 

Plains  1,  5  and  9  are  rejected  on  F.ng.  patent  to  Hurry, 
4717,9  0f  1900  (Permit ) .  These  claim  further  do  not  define  a 
product  different  from  acid  furnace  Slag.  -  . 


Case  No... (SX. Paper  No . L 


Examiner  Div.  15. 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  0EE1CE, 


Thos.  A. Edison, 

Portland  Cement  and  Process  of 
Manufacturing  some, 

Piled  December  5,1902, 

Serial  No. 134, 018. 


Room  No, 207. 


Hon.  Commissioner  of  Patents, 
Sir:- 


Please  amend  as  follows 

Page  4,  fourth  line  from  bottom,  eraee  "oonourrentl; 

herewith'1  and  substitute - December  5,1902,  Serial  No. 

134,017,  - 

Claim  1,  lines  2  and  3  erase  "at  present"  and  sub- 

situte  -  those  known  prior  to  my  invention  - 

Same  Claim,  line  5,  before "gypsum"  insert  -burned  -■ 
Cancel  ClaimB  5  and  9  and  renumber  the  remaining 

Claims . 


Applicant  has  amended  the  first  claim  as  the  Examin¬ 
er  suggests.  This  claim  is  distinguished  from  the  British 
patent  to  Hurry  in  respect  that  it  defines  a  produot  whose 
setting  time  is  controllable  by  burned  gypsum  and  Blacked 
lime.  With  the  Hurry  produot  the  patent  states  that  no 
additional  ingredient  ia  necessary  "to  produce  safety  and 
slowness  of  setting".  ' 

The  5th  and  9th  Claims  have  been  erased  because 
those  Claims  seem  to  be  broader  than  applicant's  inventior 
and  cover  an  incomplete  product. 


Orange,  H.tf. 
December  4,1903. 


Very  respectfully, 
Thos.  A. Edison, 
By 

. 


department  of  the  Interior, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  d.  c.  Deo.  26.  1903  . 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

c/oEdison  Laboratory, 
Frank  L.  Dyer, 


I  u- STPATENTopFic^ 

DEC  2  6'19'Od 


DIVISION 


Orange,  . . 

Please  find  below  a  communication  -from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 

Ser.Ho.l34,L18.  Filed  Dec.  5,  1902.  For  PORTLAND  CENEHT  &  PROCESS 

OP  MANUFACTURING  THE  SAME. 


R  J.  , 

Commissioner  of  Patents. 


Case  considered  as  amended  Dec.  5,  1903. 


Claim  1  seems  to  he  only  a  comparison  in  degree  to  some  other 
clinker  or  slag  or  a  statement  of  merits  and  docs  not  set  out  dif¬ 
ferent  properties  and  is  informal.  It  is  considered  that  acid 
slag  has  the  same  properties. 

Claims  1,  2,  3,  5,  6,  8,  9,  11  and  12  are  rejected  on  Passow, 
#13,793  of  1901,  English  patent,  (106  -  43).  Slag  of  species  1  is 
acid  and  lime  is  added  to  start  a  kind  of  decomposition  or  breaking 
up  of  this  molecule  to  produce  a  cement.  This  same  theory  is  dis¬ 
closed  by  Zulkowski,  Journal  of  the  Society  of  Chemical  Industry, 
Eyre  &  Spottiswoode,  East  Harding  St.,  London,  Apr.  30,  1898, Vol. 

17 1  pages 353  and  668,  where  he  states  that  it  is  necessary  to  add 
lime  to  acid  slag  to  start  this  decomposition.  It  is  considered 
that  it  is  no  invention  to  produce  a  speoial  slag  instead  of  using 

ent  to  Larsen,  #10,385  of  1887.  This  patent  Shows  the  addition 
of  lime  and  sulphate  of  calcium  to  slag  which  might  be  acid, slag. 


ABst>  Examiner  Div.  15. 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE. 


Thomas  A.  Edison 

IMPROVEMENT  IN  PORTLAND  CEMENT  & 
PROCESS  OE  MANUFACTURING  THE  SAME 

Filed  December  5,  1902 
Serial  No.  184,018. 


Room  No.  207 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS, 

SIR:  - 

Replying  to  Office  action  og  December 
26,  1903,  please  amend  the-  above  entitled  case  as  followd: 

Claim  1,  line  5,  change  "controlled"  to  - 
retarded.  Same  line,  after  "by"  insert  -  the  addition 
thereto  of. 


REMARKS. 

A  reconsideration  of  the  rejection  of  the  claims 
is  requested. 

The  object  of  the  invention  is  the  production 
of  a  Portland  Cement  which  shall  be  of  uniform  and  defin¬ 
ite  chemical  composition,  which  shall  oontain  no  free  an¬ 
hydrous  lime  and  at. .the  same  time,  shall  not  set  with  such 
rapidity  that  it  cannot  be  used  in  practice. 

V/hen  a  perfectly  burned  Portland  oement  is  pro¬ 
duced  and  used  without  other  constituents  the  same  setB 
with  such  rapidity  that  it  is  not  capable  of  practical’. . 
use.  Applicant  has  discovered  that  by  the  addition  there¬ 
to  of  hydrated  lime,  this  difficulty  -may.  be  avoided. 


There  ie  a  wide  difference  between  the  process  art|, 
product  herein  set  forth  and  those  of  the  references. 

Mr.  Edison' b  process  is  a  Portland  oement  process  and  hiB 
product  a  Portland  oement.  The  references  all  relate  to 
slag  oement  processes  and  products. 

Although  Hurry  &  Seaman  in  British  patent  Ho. 

7139  of  1900  describe  their  prooess  as  "an  Improved  pro¬ 
cess  for  the  manufacture  of  Portland  oement",  this  1b  a 
misnomer,  because  they  describe  a  slag  process,  merely 
using  a  specifically  prepared  slag  instead  of  a  blast  fur¬ 
nace  slag;  that  is,  they  use  a  fusion  process,  not  one 
of  incipient  vitrefication. 

A  Portland  oement, as  the  term  is  UBed  by  man¬ 
ufacturers  and  experts,  is  one  which  is  made  by  mixing 
the  materials  together  and  heating  them  until  the  proper 
chemical  reactions  take  place.  These  reactions  are  com¬ 
plete  when  the  mass  is  in  a  condition  of  semi-fusion  - 
it  is  not  liquid,  but  pasty. .  If  any  fusion  takeB  place^ff 
it  is  an  accident,  and  the  product  iB  overburned  Portland 
oement,  which  is  worthless  as  such,  since  it  has  no,  or  at 
most,  very  slight  cementitious  properties. 

On  the  other  hand  the  slagB  disclosed  by  all  the 
references  are  in  a  state  of  oomplete  fusion  during  the 
prooess  of  making  oement. 

Thus  Larsen  say^:  (page  3,  linB!  12) 

"I  therefore  prefer  in  instances  where  thiB  can¬ 
not  be  conveniently  carried  out  to  collect  the  fluid 
slagB  in  large  removable  tanks  reservoirs  or  ladles 
plaoed  on  rails  which  will  enable  one  to  remove  the 
slags  in  a  fluid  state  to  a  place  more  suitable  for 
further  or  special  treatment  than  the  immediate  neigh¬ 
borhood  of  the  furnace." 

Hurry  and  Seaman  say:  (page  2,  line  27) 


-  2  - 


"The  fused,  material  after  "being  drawn  off  from  t. 
the  "bottom  of  the  furnace  may  "be  granulated  "by  treat¬ 
ment  with  water  or  steam  in  any  of  the  well-known 
methods,  Buch  for  instance  as  the  method  used  in  the 
granulation  of  blast  furnace  alag." 

Pas sow  says: 

"1  declare  that  what  I  claim  is:- 

"1.  Process  for  producing  cement  by  melting  the 
raw  materials  together,  rapidly  oooling  the  molten 
product ,  grinding  the  same  and  mixing  it  with  from 
one  half  to  five  per  cent  of  lime,  substantially  as 
described  and  for  the  purpose  set  forth." 

Moreover,  other  differences  are  apparent.  In 
the  patent  .  to  Larsen  whatever  lime  iB  used  is  added  while 
the  slag  is  in  a  state  of  fusion. 

Larsen  sayB:  (p.  3,  line  21) 

"I  then  submit  the  slagB  to  the  treatment  requir¬ 
ed  for  each  special  case  on  the  spot  where  they  will 
be  made  into  cement.  ThiB  treatment  as  heretofore 
consists  either  in  granulation  in  water  or  disinte¬ 
gration  and  sudden  cooling,  but  besides  this  1  may 
mix  the  slags  whilst  they  are  still  in  a  fluid  state 
in  the  ladles  or  brought  to  special  mixing  furnaces 
or  reservoirs  with  such  materials  preferably  if  pos¬ 
sible  also  in  a  fluid  state  so  that  the  most  perfect 
admixture  can  be  effected  as  will  render  them  suitable 
or  more  suitable  for  producing  good  cement,  for  in¬ 
stance,  Aluminia,  Silica  or  Lime  or  one  or  more  of 
these  combined,  and  if  possible  brought  to  fusion  be¬ 
fore  the  mixing." 

Hurry  and  Seaman  use  no  lime  except  such  as  is 
necessary  to  obtain  a  proper  mixture  for  fusion 

They  say:-  (p.  3,  line  8) 

"When  the  material  is  melted  in  a  furnace  as 
above  described,  in  direct  contact  with  the  fuel,  it 
is  necessary  to  use  a  raw  mixture  of  cement  materials 
containing  a  higher  percentage  of  lime  than  is  requir¬ 
ed  in  the  older  processm  this  extra  proportion  being 
required  for  combination'  with  the  silica  and  alumina 
of  the  fuel  ash." 

In  the  patent  to  Passow,  lime  is  added  to  the 
Blag  after  granulation.  Passow  states  that  the  granulat¬ 
ed  slag  of  itself  setB  and  hardens  very  slowly,  but  when 
combined  with  lime  Bets  and  harden  excellently.  The  pro¬ 
cess  of  the  British  patentee  is  just  the  opposite  of  that 
of  applicant.  Passow  first  produces  a  very  slow-Betting 


cementitious  substance  and  adds  lime,  in  order  to  produce 
a  quicker  setting  cement.  lime  of  itself  is  not  an  hy¬ 
draulic  cement,  and  it  seems  from  the  description  in  the 
reference,  and  as  stated  by  the  examiner,  that  the  effect 
of  the  lime  is  to  produce  a  kind  of  decomposition  or  breaty 
ing  up  of  the  slag  molecule.  A  chemical  reaotion  takes 
place  between  the  slagand  the  lime,  the  algg  being  acid 
and  the  lime  basic,  whereby  the  alag  molecules  are  brok¬ 
en  down  and  a  cement  is  produced.  According  to  applicant's 
invention,  a  Portland  cement  is  first  produced,  which 
is  very  quick  setting,  and  hydrated  lime  is  added  as  an 
adulterant;  that  is,  it  is  not  added  because  of  any  ce¬ 
mentitious  properties  which  it  may  possess  or  in  order 
to  react  chemically  upon  the  cement  clinker  to  which  it 
is  added,  but  merely  to  retard  the  setting  of  the  latter, 
so  that  it  may  be  used  i»  practice. 

It  is  evident  therefore  that  applicant's  process 
is  entirely  different  from  those  of  the  references  and 
that  the  product  which  is  produced  necessarily  differs 
from  those  described  in  the  reference. 

The  claims  are  believed  to  clearly  sot  forth 
these  differences.  The  product  claims  2,  3,  5  and  6  are 
limited  to  "completely  burned  cement  clinker  free  of  anjiy- 
drous  lime"  These  claims  appear  to  distinguish  from  all 
cements  formed  from  slag,  since  slag  is  not  burned  cement 
clinker. 

The  process  claims  8  an<t  9  specify  "completely 
burning  oement  clinker  to  eliminate  free  anhydrous  lime" 
and  claims  11  and  12  specify  "completely  burning  a  cement 
mixture  having  an  excess  of  acid  so  as  to  result  in  the 
production  of  clinker  having  an  exoesdxof  acid  Ingredients 
with'  no  anhydrous  lime."  These  elements  are  not  found  in 
slag  cement  processes,  wherein  the  ingredient  fus^~ 


-  4  - 


together,  the  resultant  slag  being  in  fluid  oondition 
and  when  cooled  having  slight  oementitiousproperties  un- 
lessespecially  treated.  ' 

Claim  1  is  believed  tb  be  in  proper  form,  under 
the  practice  which  permits  a  new  product  to  be  claimed  by 
its  characteristics .  mile  it  is  true,  that  the  first 
property  iB  claimed  by  comparing  applicant's  product  with 
.  oement  clinkers  previously  Shown,  this  objection  cannot 
be  urged  against  the  remaining  elements  of  the,  claim.  The 
claim  as  amended  is  believed  to  clearly  distinguish  from 
acid  slag  oement,  whose  setting  time  is  accelerated  by 
lime.  ' 

Respectfully  submitted,  '  . 

THOMAS  A.  3D1S0H,|  . 

By  i 

$A. oCj  _ 

His  Attorney. 

Orange,  New  Jersey 

December  /L  1904.  % 


s—iioo. 

DIV.JUL  noom_..308  .  Paper  No.  4* . 


GDJ 


DEPARTMENT  OP  THE  INTERIOR, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  d.  c.,  Jan,  9,  1905. 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 
o/o  Frank  I.  Dyer, 

Edison  'Laboratory,' 

Ser.No.  134,018,  filed  Deo. 


u.  s.  prnnr  officZ 

JAN  fit  1305 


*  from  Hut  EXAMINER  in  oharjto  of  yonr  application, 

5,  1903,  for  PORTLAND  CEMENT  &  PROCESS 
OF  MANUFACTURING  SAME. 


$  c/,  $lJLs^ 


CaBe  oonaidered  as  amended  Dec.  17,  1904. 

Claims  2,  3,  8,  6,  8,  9,  11  and  12  are  rejected  on  the  refer¬ 
ences  of  record.  The  argument  as  to  the  difference  between  the 
degrees  of  burning  as  mentioned  by  applicant  and  by  the  references 
does  not  apply  to  the  olaims.  The  words  "completely  burned  cement 
clinker"  are  not  considered  to  distinguish  between  heating  to  a 
temperature  to  produce  a  viscous  mass  or  a  fluid  mass.  If  the 

claims  brought  out  the  distinction  it  is  thought  that  this  is  only 

a  difference  in  degree  and  that  the  viscous  mass  would  have  no  prop¬ 
erties  not  possessed  by  the  fused  mass,  as  Hurry  &  Seaman  of  record 
and  Cummings,  $206,616,  July  2,  1878,  (106  -  43)  have  found  that 
the  fused  mass  has  strong  hydraulic  properties. Hurry  &  Seaman  state 
that  they  are  oareful  to  have  all  the  lime  oombined  so  that’ the 
product  must  be  at  least  neutral  and  is  probably  aoid.  Passow’s 
product  Is  add.  if  any  substantial  difference  between  vitrified 
and  fused  produot  dan  be  shown  end  it  be  brought  out  in  the  speci¬ 
fication  the  olaims  may  be  allowed.  It  should  also  be  made  oletf 

in  .the  specification,  impossible,  any  distinction  in  proportion! 
of  , ingredients  in  the  composition.  V.:. 


Exandner.,! 


Serial  No.  jLSJZ&Z 


Title . Q™/’/''.-:,- 

— : , — -i 

.  . c 

. . . # . 

Filed  . • . ,  .  4', 

Assignee . 

Examiner’s  Room  No. 

4- . 

Ass’g’t  Exec . - . _ . . . _Recorded_ .  . Liber  Page 

Patent  No.  .  Issued^. 

ACTIONS. 


-  3  18... 

§:  19... 

,;f  ,'  S.d!«*k^  20... 

j|;-,  6:. . . ....;. . :....  21.... 

I-  •  7 . '. . •• .  22... 

;  8..'. . . . • . : . .  23.... 

■  9 . , . . . . . ‘  24.  .. 

f to..;.. . 25... 

<;:n:-1;1  26... 

,  .  i2....... . . . . ......v, . . 1: . :  27..... 

I  ;  13......;...... . . . . . v . .  28 . 

-  ->;i4 . ‘ . , . . . . . ....:.  29..:. 

)/J\5  .  ’ . ;  30 . 


. /  ntiLt . .  ..  ■’C-- 


FRANK  L.  DYER, 

Counsel, 

.  nu  AivrhTr'ivnr\T7~  nn?  ctrv 1  ‘i-3 


**  rx  i~<U 


q)L  OVCCg,\v(  wv.  GX'vx-o  t%A  Onw.tvwc.vwrj  7CC  L(ua.  lU.  aTe**  (S'Cvtu 

-ttc  CtrCJ^^cCM  ^rv.^oaC,4^  I 

■j-4  &J.  uotranu  fuJ £«~Jp,.f2  ^-dZ 

“B8:  "X  - 

ar  Hi  4«ISX<—  tc^y  L^  eX^T^fC-i  - - 


*/  ‘L^Jj/'Hi  (auUu~'-~  t—  ^  cL^"3' 

Lu  tu^'^ 

r~|— c„:--  v  f  jnr  .  f  •Jr  "tTHU  l jxL^tiJ  ^  <---| 

Q-c^i  |oC.Q^  0-C^«—  (tbcrzz^.  e^  8-'^ 


ut~LjucS^  xl75e,6-  QCce*~~  tl fczTTyj^  c  0* 

^<w^vjtJL-£C'rL  ~Xr  (-cv^y  aZUTZ^J  Co  O  JLt^S  — :  ~]b  Lu-  o'Ttrr  ^*i 

c-i  '1^  ff"32n  ”  ^  t~"' 

jU-,,fet.~  «^ce.  c./e~  e~-—  ■£  ~ 

tL  iCUprt^.  uu-Ow  >X.  -Jp>  «  v*.e~*-r- 

LU  <^2£~,  -  -£-*  ^'“T*  o-gfr 


VJ  _,.  > — -V 

o (Uw'  CX»  '■S  ja_c^.<J  i 


-tnu  utx^*^  cU’"1*'  wc^~ 

[L-fcz,  p-A  .<Uo'— =— r^  ^ 

,  -! — ^  ZPT.. 


,-rCtr  e^^ETvc  ~ 

g+CZZJl- eL^-O—  ~fU.  1*^^ 


Serial  No .MZ#. 


Filed  V 


^  . 


-  'UtHZ2^  ■<?..._ . 


Examiner’s  Room  No 


_  '.  /  ■  :  . 

1^  Assignee  . 

um  fiAssyt  Exec.:.....: . . 

©a  ■  1  Patent  No . 


.  Tb!.. 


li’fcg; 


18... 


•C  ,I.Jj . . . t&j'fy'.JfjfoyL  20 . : . ....^..;....:::1....... 

21.... . . . . • '/ fy 

22 . : . ;;..>:.i..^.!; 

. f£%Gd£.\.S.6?..^r..  k.izr  23 . . .., ...*‘.<™.J’...„. . ...',. 

t9:^hi^^hu. . .....R.f:  24 . •  >  V'* 

1  ()' . . . ... 5?fi ..../. ^  o . <?  25 . . .^.i.  '/'•'••  ' 

26 . ....J.....L . ! . ....,....,  >/ 

'•& . •■•'• . .  27 . 1 . i,l..A£...:.£  ......... 


FRANK  L.  DYER,  , 


* 


LAW  OFFICES. 
oK 

DYER,  EDMONDS  &  DYER. 

patents  anD  patent  Causes. 


■n 

Petition. 


Zo  the  (Commissioner  of  (patents : 

YOUR  petitioner  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  residing  and  having  his  post  office  address 
at  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange,  in  the  County  of  Essex  and  State 
of  New  Jersey, 

PRAYS  THAT  LETTERS  PATENT  MAY  BE  GRANTED  TO  HIM  FOR  THE  IMPROVE¬ 
MENT  IN  SEPARATING  OR  GRADING  APPARATUS  (Case  no.  1089) 


SET  FORTH  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION  ;  AND  HE  HEREBY  APPOINTS  DYER,  EDMONDS 
AND  DYER,  REGISTRATION  NO.  2588  (A  FIRM  COMPOSED  OF  RICHARD  N.  DYER,  SAMUEL 
O.  EDMONDS  AND  FRANK  L.  DYER),  OF  NO.  31  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  HIS 
ATTORNEYS,  WITH  FULL  POWER  OF  SUBSTITUTION  AND  REVOCATION,  TO  PROSECUTE 
THIS  APPLICATION,  TO  MAKE  ALTERATIONS  AND  AMENDMENTS  THEREIN,  TO  RECEIVE 
THE  PATENT,  AND  TO  TRANSACT  ALL 
THEREWITH. 


SPECIFICATION. 


I!.,, 


TO  ALL  WHOM  IT  KAY  CONCERN; 

Be  It  known  that  I,  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  oitizen  of 
the  United  States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange,  County 
of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey,  have  invented  a  certain 
new  and  useful  IMPROVEMENT  IN  SEPARATING  OR  GRADING  APPARATUS  I, 
of  whioh  the  following  is  a  specif ioatlons- 

|  My  invention  relates  to  improvements  in  apparatus 

for  use  particularly  in  the  manufacture  of  cement  and  de¬ 
signed  for  the  separation  of  the  sufficiently  fine  particles 
from  the  coarser  partlolee  of  pulverized  cement  and  cement 
mixtures.  The  type  of  apparatus  is  one  in  which  the  sepa¬ 
ration  Is  effaoted  by  means  of  an  air  blast  so  regulated  and 
applied  that  the  sufficiently  fine  and  light  particles  will 
be  oarried  by  the  blest  into  a  settling  chamber,  from  which 
they  are  withdrawn  either  continuously  or  intermittently, 
the  heavier  and  coarser  particles  being  substantially  un¬ 
affected  by  the  draft  and  passing  immediately,  out  of  its  ' 
influence  for  return  to  the  grinding  apparatus,  where,  a 
further  pulverization  of  the  coarser  particles  takes  place. 

Although  -the -attempt  has  been  made  to  commercially 
operate  separators  by  means  of  air  blasts,  the  devices  here¬ 
tofore  proposed  for  the  purpose  have  been  unsatisfactory  in 
practice  for  the  reason  that  the  pressure  and  velocity  of  thn 
blest  or  blasts  of  air  have  been  so  affected  by  atmospheric 
conditions  as  to  pressure,  and  otherwise  as  to  make  Impossi  ¬ 
ble  a  sufficiently  aoourate  sorting  or  grading  of  the  pul¬ 
verulent  material.  With  my  improved  apparatus  no  difficul¬ 
ties  of' this  kind  are  encountered,  for  the  reason  that  the 
settling. chamber  and  oonduits  through  which  the  air  passes 


-1- 


are  completely  iaolated  from  outside  Influenoea,  bo  as  to  lie 
absolutely  unaffeotod  by  atmospheric  changes  however  severe. 
For  this  reason  with  ray  apparatus  the  air  blasts  may  bo  al¬ 
ways  kept  approximately  constant,  both  in. velocity  and  pres¬ 
sure  at  all  times,  thereby  permitting  a  very  aoourate  and 
uuiforra  separation  of  the  finer  particles  to  bo  effected 
throughout  the  entire  operation. 

In  apparatus  heretofore  suggested  for  grading  pul¬ 
verulent  materials  by  means  of  air  blasts,  the  fine  parti- 
oles  have  been  generally  permitted  to  fall  vertically  and 
substantially  perpendicularly  through  the  blast,  so  that  the 
effeot  of  the  blast  is  merely  to  alter  the  trajectory  of  the 
falling  partioles  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  according  to 
the  fineness  of  the  latter.  Owing  to  the  relative  ease 
with  which  the  trajectory  of  a  falling  body  way  be  changed, 
the  resulting  grading  operation  has  been  always  unsatisfac¬ 
tory,  sinoe  the  separated  finer  partioles  differ  very  con¬ 
siderably  in  size.  In.  my  present  apparatus  I  overoome 
this  defect  hy  causing  the  pulverised  material  to  be  di¬ 
rected  into  the  blast  in  such  a  way  that  the  finer  particles, 
in  order  to  bo  separated  from  the  coarser  partioles,  require 
to  be  projected  against  the  force  of  gravity,  so  that  only 
the  extremely  light  partioles  will  be  separated.  My  Inven¬ 
tion  therefore  oonsists  of  an  improved  separating  or  grading 
apparatus  possessing  the  characteristics  referred  to,  and  it 
also  oonsists  in  various  details  of  construction  and  ar¬ 
rangement,  all  as  will  be  more  fully  hersinof ter  described 
and  claimed. 

In  order  that  the  invention  may  be  better  under¬ 
stood,  attention  is  dlredtad  to  the  accompanying  drawings 
forming  part  of  this  specification,  and  in  which  figure  1  ie 
a  side  view  of  my  improved  apparatus  in  its  preferred  form, 

-3- 


illustrating  the  settling  chambers  as  being  arranged  in  two 
banka  j  figure  2  a  aeotion  on  the  line  2—2  of  f figure  1, 
showing  a  single  eleotrio  motor  for  driving  tho  fanB  of  two 
separators 5  figure  3  an  enlarged  aeotion  through  one  of  the 
fans  and  air  ducts,  showing  a  part  of  ono  of  tho  settling 
ohambers;  figure  4  a  section  on  tho  lino  4—4  of  figure  3, 
illustrating  particularly  the  manner  of  .removing  the  deflect-' 
ing  boards;  figure  5  on  enlarged  view  illustrating  the  man¬ 
ner  of  adjusting  the  deflecting  boards;  figure  6a  section 
on  tho  line  6—6  of  figure  5;  figure  7  ou  enlarged  diagram¬ 
matic  view  illustrating  the  deflecting  boards  over  which  the 
material  travels  when  being  acted  upon  by  the  blaBts,  and 
showing  by  arrows  tho  direction  of  the  blasts;  and  figure  8 
an  enlarged  sectional  view  through  two  of  the  fans,  showing 
a  single  motor  for  driving  the  same. 

1,1  represent  vertical  settling  chambers  of  any  de¬ 
sired  size,  having  hopperlike  bottoms  2,  through  which  pass 
screw  conveyors  3  for  of footing  &  constant  removal  of  tho 
partiolee  which  settle  in  the  bottom  of  tho  chambers.  Bach 
settling  chamber  may  bo,  and  preferably  is,  made  of  a  light 
metal  framework  covered  with  canvas  or  similar  textile  fab¬ 
ric,  Whereby  a  very  light  and  cheap  construction  is  secured. 
Leading  out  of  eaoh  of  the  settling  chambers  at  its  upper 
end  are  two  air  duets  or  conduits  4,  4,  made  also  preferably 
of  a  light  metal  frame  covered  with  canvas,  and  each  of  those 
ducts  at  its  lower  end  connoetc  with  the  inlet  pipe  S  of  an 
ordinary  blower  or  centrifugal  fen  6.  Tho  two  blowers  0  oi 
adjacent  separators  are  mounted  on  a  common  shaft  7  (see 
figures  2  and  8)  and  driven  through  gearing  8  from  a  motor 
9,  preferably  an  eleotrio  motor.  By  enploying  an  eleotrio 
motor,  its  speed  can  bo  readily  controlled,  thereby  allowing 
for  an  ooourate  regulation  of  the  draft  so  as  to  make  it 
possible  to  sequre  any  desired  degree  of  fineness  in  the  re-  - 
- — —-8-.  ,  _ . . _ ... 


stitutes  a  horizontal  metallic  boxlike  structure  leading  di¬ 
rectly  Ijito  tho  Battling  chamber  (sea  figure  3).  A  part  of 
the  bottom  of  this  discharge  duet  is  formed  of  ijivoted  slats 
11*  vfoioh  in  figure  3  are  shown  as  being  open,  although  it 
will  be  understood  that  normally  these  slats  are  maintained 
in  a  horizontal  position  to  olose  and  preserve  the  continuity 
of  the  duct  at  its  bottom.  The  slats  11  are  operated  by  a 
single  lever  12.  Within  the  discharge  duet  10  of  eaoh  fan 
are  deflecting  boards  or  partitions  arranged  in  two  series 
13  and  14.  The  two  sets  of  deflecting  boards  or  partitions 
are  arranged  as  a  whole  preferably  slightly  out  of  the  ver¬ 
tical,  and  the  setB  are  so  disposed  relatively  to  each  other 
that  the  material  introduced  at  the  top  is  eaused  to  partake 
of  a  zigzag  path  in  passing  downwardly,  as  shown  in  dotted 
lines  in  figure  7.  The  air  from  the  fans  6  follows  the 
oouraes  indicated  by  the  arrows,  being  deflected  downwardly 
by  the  partitions  13  so  as  to  pass  directly  through  the  mate* 
rial  as  it  flows  off  of  the  edges  of  those  partitions  onto 
the  partitions  14  and  vioo  versa.  The  difeotion  of  the  air 
blastB  is  changed  by  the  partitions  14,  the  blasts  being  de¬ 
flected  slightly  upwards  out  of  tho  horizontal,  so  as  to 
carry  the  fine  particles  into  the  settling  chambers  against 
the  attraction  of  gravity.  Preferably  the  deflecting 
boards  or  partitions  13  and  14  are  secured  to  angles  16 
pivoted  to  plates’  16  and  17  respectively  by  pivots  18.  Each 
of  the  angles  Is  provided  with  a  slot  19  near  one  end  with 
which  a  bolt  20  engages,  so  that  the  angles  can  be  adjusted 
to  suit  the  requirements  of  use.  The  plates  16  and  17  car¬ 
rying  the  two  sets  of  defies  ting  boards  are  removably  oarrle l 
by  the  Bides  21  of  the  discharge  duot  10,  so  as  to  be  bodily 
removable  thorefrom,  as  shown.  In  this  way  the  deflecting 

-4- 


boards  can  be  adjusted  outside  of  the  apparatus  and  then  in¬ 
troduced  in  position.  The  pulverised  material  is  fed  to 
the  deflecting  boards  by  means  of  a  roller-feed  22  arranged 
in  a  chamber  23  and  supplied  from  a  trough  24  in  vdiloh  works 
a  soraper  conveyor  25  of  any  desired  type.  Bach  of  the 
roller-feeds  22  is  preferably  driven  from  the  fan  shaft  7 
by  intermediate  gearing,  as  shown,  whereby  the  speed  of  the 
roller-feed  will  vary  proportionately  to  the  velocity  of  the 
blast.  Thus  when  the  blast  1b  increased  to  thereby  augment 
the  pressure  and  result  in  the  separation  of  the  heavier  par¬ 
ticles,  the  load  of  material  supplied  by  the  roller-feeds 
will  be  proportionately  increased,  so  that  the  maximum  duty 
may  at  all  times  be  imposed  upon  the  blast.  The  deflecting 
boards  or  partitions  13  and  14  extend  at  their  lower  endB 
into  %  hopper  2G  formed  at  the  bottom  of  the  discharge  duot 
10,  and  from  this  hopper  leads  a  closed  ohute  27  to  a  con¬ 
veyor  28  of  any  suitable  type,  a  belt  conveyor  being  shown 
for  the  purpose  of  illustration.  The  oonveyor  28  returns 
the  rejected  coarser  particles  to  the  grinding  apparatus,  in 
which  the  coarser  particles  arc  reground.  A  hopper  29  is 
mounted  below  tho  pivoted  slats  11  and  connects  with  the 
chute  27  to  permit  any  material  which  may  aooumulate  on  the 
bottom  of  the  discharge  duot  10  to  be  returned  to  the  con¬ 
veyor  28.  Preferably  the  lower  portion  of  each  of  the  con¬ 
duits  4  is  hinged  at  30  (see^figire^Oj^BO  that  the  lbwer 

1 portion*may^ bo  swung  outwardly^to  disoloso  the  inlet  to  the 
fan  and  perralt  the  latter  to  be  oleaned  or  repaired  or  any 
f oreigntB.^b  Btonae  removed  therefrom. 

-'•'-The  operation  is  as  follows:-  Pulverised  material 
Ib  supplied  to  the  several  roller-feeds  22,  and  by  each  of 
the  roller-feeds  is  fed  in  .a  uniform  wide  but  very  thin 
stream  onto  the  defleotingboarde  13  and  14,  down  whioh  the 
material  passes  in  a  zigzag  bourse.  Tho  fans  6  being  opera- 

_  ^ _ . .  . . .  . . -.8- . _ . . .  .....  V: 


ted,  air  is  forced  through  the  discharge  ducts  10,  and  by  th< 
deflecting  hoards  13  is  divided  into  a  plurality  of  downward¬ 
ly  projected  blasts.  Those  blasts  pass  through  the  stream 
of  falling  material,  and  their  direction  is  changed  so  as  to 
carry  off  the  sufficiently  fine  particles  into  the  settling 
ohombers  against  the  attraction  of  gravity,  whereby  a  very 
uniform  separation  of  the  extremely  fine  particles  is  secur¬ 
ed.  Owing  to  the  relatively  large  area  of  the  settling 
chambers,  the  pressure  of  the  blasts  is  reduced,  so  that  the 
fine  partloles  are  permitted  to  settle  into  the  hopperlike 
bottom  2,  from  whioh  they  are  removed  to  a  suitable  stock 
house  or  elsewhere  by  the  oonveyors  3.'  Air  for  supplying 
the  fans  is  taken  from  the  settling  ohaniberB  as  shown,  so 
that  a  constant  circulation  of  air  is  maintained  in  the  ap¬ 
paratus.  In  this  way  the  apparatus  is  entirely  independent 
of  outside  influences,  and  the  blasts  remain  constant  in  pres¬ 
sure  and  velooity  irrespective  of  atmospheric  ohanges.  The 
coarser  and  heavier  partioleB  whioh  are  not  affeoted  by  the 
blasts  pass  into  the  oonduit  2?  and  are  returned  by  the  con¬ 
veyor  28  to  the  grinding  apparatus.  Prom  time  to  time  the 
Blatted  bottom  11  of  the  discharge  duct  10  may  be  opened  to 
permit  partioleB  accumulated  therein  to  be  returned  by  the 
conveyor  28  for  rogrinding. 


Having  now  described  my  invention,  what  I  claim  is:' 

1.  An\improved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  separar 
tion  of  finer  from  coarser  partioleB  in  ground  material, 
comprising  in  combination  a  settling  ohamberAa  fan  having 
its  discharge. duct ueading  into  the  settling  chamber,  de¬ 
vices  for  oausing  a Relatively  thin  stream  of  pulverized 
material  to  pasB  downvardly  across  the  dlsohargwduct  so  as 
to  bo  acted  on  by  the  air  currents  therein,  and  an  air  duet 

-6- 


-v 


connecting  the  settling  chamber^  with  the  Inlet  to  the  fan, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

.  An  improved  apparatuik  for  effeoting  the  separa¬ 
tion  of  finer  from  coarser  partloles^in  ground  material, 
ooraprlsingXin  combination  a  settling  chamber,  a  fan  having 
its  di schargev duot  leading  into  the  settling  chamber,  de¬ 
vices  for  o’ausing  a  relatively  thin  strewn  of,  pulverized  mo- 
terial  to  pas.p  downwardly  across  the  discharge  duot  so  as  to 
be  acted  on  by\th'e  air  currents  therein,  and Vn  air  duot 
connecting  the  Battling  ohaniber  at  its  upper  eWd  with  the 
inlet  to  the  fan,\substantially  as  set  forth. 

3.  An  improved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  sepa¬ 
ration  of  finer  from  coarser  partioles  in  ground  material, 
oomprising  in  combination  a  settling  chamber,  I  a  fan  having 
two  inlets  with  its  discharge  dutt  leading  inlo  the  settling 
ohamber,  devices  for  oausing  a  relatively  thin\streara  of  pul 
verized  material  to  pass  downwardly  across  the  discharge 
duct  so  as  to  be  acted,  on  by  the  air  currents  therein,  and 
separate  air  ducts  connecting  the  settling  chamber  with  the 
inlets  to  the  fan,  substantially  as  apt  forth.  ' 

An  improved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  sepa¬ 
ration  of  finer  from  tfoarBer  partioles  lnVround  material, 
oomprising  in  combination  a  settling  charnbet,  a  fan  having 
its  discharge  duot  loading  Into  the  settling Nohamber,  de¬ 
vices  for  oausing  a  relatively  thin  stream  of  Vulverized 
naterial  to  pass  downwardly  across  the  disoharg\duot  t 
to  he  aoted  on  by  the  air  currents  therein,  and  an^air  duet 
having-a-pivoied-s eotion)  oonneo tt^ng  the  settling  chamber 
with  the  inlet  to  the  fan  .^substantially  as  set  forth. 

6.  \  An  improved  apparatus  ypr  effecting  \fche  sepa¬ 
ration  of  finer  from  coarser  particles  in  ground  material, 
)omprising  in\combination  a  plurality  of  settling  Chambera, 


corresponding  fans  having  their  discharge  duots  leading  in¬ 


to  We  settliig  ohamhers,  a\oonraon  motor  for  operating  said 
fans\devioes  for  oausing  a  relatively  thin  stream  of  pulver¬ 
ised  material  to  pass  downwardly  aorosB  oaoh  diooh^S0  duo,fc 


oo  as  mo  he  noted  on  hy  the  air.  currents  therein, 'and  air 
duotB  opnneoting  the  settling  oiipiriberB  with  the  inlets  to 
the  respective  fans,  substantially  as  Bet  forth. 

e\  An  improved  apparatus'vfor  effecting  the  sepa¬ 
ration  of  finer  from  ooarBer  particles  in  ground  material, 
oompriB  ing\in  combination  a  settlingAohamber,  a  fan  having  ; 
its  discharge  duct  leading  into  the  settling  eltamber;  a 
regulable  motmir  for  operating  said  fan; and  devioes  operated 
hy  the  motor  for  causing  a  relatively  thin  stream  of  pul¬ 
verized  material  to  pass  downwardly  across  the  disoharge 
duet  bo  as  to  be  acted  on  by  the  air  ourhentB  therein, .sub¬ 
stantially  as  forth.  1 

An  improved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  sepa¬ 
ration  of  finer  fromaearser  partioles  in  ground  material, 
Comprising  in  oomhination  a  settling  ohamber,  a  fan  having 
its  disoharge  duot  laading\lnto  the  settling  ohamber,  a  roll¬ 
er-feed  for  oausing  a  relatively  thin  stream  of  pulverized 


material  to  pass  downwardly  e 


i  the  disoharge  duot  so  as 


to  be  aoted  on  by  the  air  ourrents\therein,  and  a  regulable 
motor  for /'operating-  -th^fan-anA-rollehs^feod,  Substantially 
as  set  ~ 

i  /oi  S.  An 'iiinqp roved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  sepa¬ 

ration  of  finer  from  coarser  partioles  limground  material, 
oompriBing  in  combination  a  Bottling  ohamner,  a  fan  having 
its  disoharge  duot  leading  into  the  settling  ohamber,  two 
BetB  of  deflecting,  boards  or  partitions  inttthe  discharge 
duot,  moans  for  feeding  a  relatively  thin  stream  of  pul¬ 
verized  material  toi  the  deflecting  boards,  and  an  air  duot 


connecting  1  the  settling  chamber  with  the  inlet  to  the  fan, 
substantially  aa  se_t  ^orth.  \ 

An  improved  apparatus  for  Wf  acting  the  Wpa- 
ratiori\of  finer  from  o career  particles  Mi  ground  material, 
oorapristog  in  combination  a  settling  chamber,  a  fan  Haling 
its  diaonjarge  duct  leadln^Xinto  the  settlirtk  chamber, rc- 
|  movable  defleo ting  boards  oXpartitions  oarriW  within  \he 
diaohargo  d^et  of  the  fan,  arid  means  for  foedlhg  a  relative¬ 
ly  thin  Btream  of  pulverized  material  to  the  deflecting 
hoards  or  partitions,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

$  Kf.  Arkimp  roved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  sepa¬ 

ration  of  finer  fnnn  ooarser  particles  in  ground  material, 
comprising  in  combination  a  settling  chamber,  a  fan  having 
its  discharge  duct  leading  into  the  settling  chamber,  ad¬ 
justable  deflecting  boards  or  partitions  oarried  within  the 
discharge  duot  of  the  fan,  lwid  means  for  feeding  a  relative¬ 
ly  thin  stream  of  pulverized  material  to  the  deflecting 
boards  or  partitions,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

li.  An  improved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  sepa¬ 
ration  of  finer  from  Viarser  particles  in  ground  material, 
comprising  in  combination  a  settling  chamber,  a  fan  having 
its  disoharge  duct  leading\into  the  settling  ohamhor,  re¬ 
movable  and  adjustable  deflating  hoards  or  partitions  oar¬ 
ried  within  the  disoharge  duot  wC  the  fan,  and  means  for 
feeding  a  relatively  thin  stream  orspulverized  material  to 
the  defleoting  boards  or  partitions,  nh^st antially  ns  Bet 
forth. 

Ifl.'  A  duct  for  oonvdylng  dust -laden  air  currents, 
oompris in®  a  frame  arid  a  oovering  of  textile  material  there¬ 
for,  substantially  as\set  forth^ 


f 


□  ESCRIBED  AND  CLAIMED  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION!  THAT  HE  DOES  NOT 
KNOW  AND  DOES  NOT  BELIEVE  THAT  THE  SAME  WAS  EVER  KNOWN  OR  USED  BY  OTHERS 
N  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA  BEFORE  HIS  INVENTION  OR  DISCOVERY  THEREOF; 
OR  PATENTED  OR  DESCRIBED  IN  ANY  PRINTED  PUBLICATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 
OF  AMERICA  OR  ANY  FOREIGN  COUNTRY  BEFORE  HIS  INVENTION  OR  DISCOVERY  THEREOF, 
OR  MORE  THAN  TWO  YEARS  PRIOR  TO  THIS  APPLICATION!  OR  IN  PUBLIC  USE  OR  ON 


SALE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  FOR  MORE  THAN  TWO  YEARS  PRIOR  TO  THIS  APPLICATION, 
AND  THAT  NO  APPLICATION  FOR  PATENT  UPON  SAID  INVENTION  HAS  BEEN  FILED  BY 


HIM  OR  HIS  LEGAL  REPRESENTATIVES  OR 
THAN  SEVEN  MONTHS  PRIOR  TO  THE  FILING 


SWORN 


SUBSCRIBED  BEFORE 


f 


Department  of  the  Interior, 


SERIES  OF  1900. 


\  The  papers  arc  duly  filed,  and  your  application  for  a  patent  will  be  taken 
"  up  for  examination  in  its  order _ _ 


You  will  be  duly  advised  of  the  examination. 

Very  respectfully, 


BSP  If  payment  is  made  by  oheok  or  draft,  the  credit  granted  i 


.  (M~360- 


i  States  Patent  Of.fice, 


Thomas  A.  Edison | 

Caro  Pyer,  Rdmonds.  A  Dyer, 


D.  S,  PAfK'iT  OFFICE:"' 

FEB  1 7  1903 


®  p  -Plcasi  'fttld  .'below,  a.  vompvnnibdt  ion  from  ■  the,  EX  A  Ml  fig g  iy^liargc  ojjij/om;  •  -application, 

#138,488,  filed  Jan. ft,  1903,  for  ,8eparatirig  or  Grading  Apparatus. 


Claim  1  is  rejeoted  in  view  of  JJ67i3g9r--White*  Hov.  14,  1888, 
Chop  Graders*  Shaking  Bolts. 

Claim  8  is  rejeoted  in  view  of  White*  oited. 

Claim  S  failB  to  express  anything  distinct. over  White,  cited. 
See  fin.:  4  showing  inlets  on  both  sides  of  the  fan.  The  claim  is 
met  in  substance  in  4S5(V$40,  Wolf,  June  30,  1801,  Chop  Graders* 
Gravity,  the  relocation  of  the  fan  being  a  fomal  ohanga. 

Claim  4  is  rejected  in  view  of  458,011*  Whitmore,  Aug.  86,1891, 
Chop  Graders,  Gravity,  and  any  instance  of  a  detachable  blast  conduit 
-  33,448,  Dyer,  June  17,  1868,  Grain  Separators,  Gravity,  R. 

Claim  B  is  rejeoted  in  view  of  168,166*  Bownton*  April  80*  1878 
Chop  Graders,  Gravity,  showing  a  plurality  of  separators  with  fans 
driven  from  a  ooramon  souron  of  power. 

Claim  6  is  rejeoted  in  view  of  Down ton  and  any  instance  of  a 
. feeder  .driven  from  the  same  source  as. the  fan  —  494,800,  fiohnnaker, 
April  4,  .1893,  Chop  Graders,  Gravity. 

Claim  7  is  rejected  on  the  references  for  olaim.6.  It  is  too 
common  to  provide  regulating  means  for  the  mot of e  or  engines  employed 
to  drive  separators,  to  leave  any  room  for  invention  in  the  mere 
use  of  any  type  of  regulable  motors  for  suoh  purpose. 

Claim  8  is  rejeoted  in  view  of  White  or  Wolf ,  cited. 

Claim  9  is  rejected  as  destitute,  of  invention  in  view  of  Whit¬ 
more,  oited.  Removability  ner  se  oannot  impart  patentability*  but 
Case,No,..V^.... Paper  No . / 


Bdlaon  -  2  #138,428 


aae  402,440,  HaftRonraaoher,  April  30,  1089 ,  Chop  Graders,  Gravity. 

01dm  10  fail  a  to  diatinffuiah  paientably  over  Whitmore,  cited, 
in  view  of  whioh  it  ia  rejeoted. 

Claim  11  la  re j noted  in  view  of  483,843,  Shelley,  Deo.  22,  1891, 
Chop  Graders,  Gravity,  fi<j.  3. 

Claim  12  la  rejeoted  in  view  of  #349,329,  Lord,  Sept,.  14,1886, 
Ore  and  Ooalj  Separators,  Dry,  and  233,375,  Richards,  Oot.  19,1880, 
Chop  Gr'ad.era,  Gravity.  . 


Examiner, 

Division  xxv. 


CaseNo..^...PaP«':No--^ 


UNITED;  STATES  PATENT  OPPICE. 


Thos.  A.Edison, 

Separat i ng  and  Gra  di ng 
Apparatus , 

Piled  January  9,1903, 
Serial  No. 138,420. 


Room  No. 243. 


Hon.  Commissioner  of  Patents, 

Sir:- 

Please  amend  as  afollows:- 
Cancel  Claims  1  and  2  and  subs  tit ute :- 

1.  \An  improved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  separa¬ 
tion  of-  finerVfrom  coarser  particles  in  ground  material, 
comprising  ini 'combination,  an  up  right  settling  chamber, 

a  fan  mounted  exteriorly..,  of  the  settling  chamber,  a  sub- 
stantialyhorizontal  discharge-duct  leading  from  the  fan  in¬ 
to  the  settling  chamber,  devices  for  causing  a  relatively 
thin  stream  of  pulverized  material  to  pass  downwardly  acrosE 
the  diBcharge-duct  so  ks  to  be  acted  on  by  the  air  currents 
therein,  and  an  alr-dpcA connecting  the  settling-  chamber 
with  the  inlet  to  the  fan\whereby  a  continuous  circulation 
of  air  wiirl  be  maintained  from  the  fan  to  the  settling 
chamber  and  vioe  versa,  substantially  as  set  forth.  ^ 

2.  An  improved  appamtus  for  effecting  the  separa¬ 
tion  of  finer  from  coarser  panticles  in  ground  material, 
comprising  In'  combination,  an  upright  settling  ohamber, 

a  fan  mounted  exteriorly,'  of  tha  settling  ohamber,  a  sub¬ 
stantiality-horizontal  dlsoharge-dudt  leading  from  the  fan  in¬ 
to  the  settling  chamber^  devices  for  causing  a  relatively 
thin  stream  of  pulverized  material  \o  pass  downwardly  across 
the  discharge-duct  so  as  to  acted  on \y  the  air  currents 

1.  . 


therein,  and  an  air- duct  connected  with  the  upper  end  of 
the  settling  chamber  with  the  inlet  to  the  fan  whereby  a 
continuous  circulation  of  air  will  be  maintained  from  the 
fan  to  the  settling  chamber  and  vloe .versa,  substantially 
as  set  forth. 

'Erase  Claims'  5  and  6  and  substitute 
5.  Arts. improved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  seppxa- 
ti-on_of  finer  from  coarser  particles  in  ground  material, 
comprising  in  combination  two  vertical  settling  chambers 
arranged  side  by  side ^corresponding  fans  arranged  Bide  by 
side  exteriorly  of  the  settling  chambers,  a  discharge-duot 
extending  from  each  of  saidSfans  to’  its  respective  settling! 
chamber,  a  common  motor. jnounteti  between  said  fans  for  simul¬ 
taneously  operating  the  same ,  devices  for  causing  a  rela¬ 
tively  thin  strewn  of  pulverised  material  to  pass  downward¬ 
ly  across  each  discharge-duot  so  as  to  acted  on  by  the 
air  currents  therein,  and  air-duct s.  connecting  each  settling| 
chamber  with  the  inlet  to  its  respective  fan  whereby  air 
currents  v/ill  be  maintained  continuously  between Nihe  fans 
and  settling  chambers  and  vice  versa,  substantially  as  sei 
forth. 


Change  the  numeral  of  Claim  7  to  6. 

Erase  Claim  8  and  substitute:- 
7.  An  improved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  separa¬ 
tion  of  finer  from  coarser  particles  in  ground  material, 
comprising  in  combination  a  vertical  settling  chamber,  a 
fan  having  its  discharge-duot  leading  Into  the  said  settling 
chamber,  two  sets  of  deflecting  boards  or  partitions  in  the 
discharge-duot  afrangedVn  two  inclined  hanks  therein  where! y 
the  air  passing  through  the  same  will  be  deflected  downward¬ 
ly  and  then  upwardly,  meansNf or  feeding  a  relatively  thin 
stream  of  pulverised  materialN^o  the  deflecting  boards  so 
as  to  be  aoted  upon  by  the  air  tmrrents  between  the  defleot- 
2. 


Ing  'boards  and  an'  air-duct  connecting  the  settling  chamber 
with  the  inlet  to  the  fan,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

Cancel  Claim  9. 

Change  the  numerals  of  Claims  10  and  11  to  8  and 
9  respectively. 

Erase  Claim. IS.  . 

A  reconsideration  of  Claims  3,  4,  0,  6  and  9  is 
respectfully  requested.  These  claims  are  all  limited  to 
special  combinations  of  elements  which  combinations  are  not 
present  in  the  references  cited.  For  instance  concerning 
the  third,  the  White  patent  does  not  show  separate  air- 
duots  connecting  the  settling  chamber  with  the  inlets  to 
the  fans,  but  the  fans  appear  tobe  mounted  directly  in  the 
settling  chamber.  The  .same  is  true  with  the  patent  to  Wolf, 
Concerning  the. fourth  claim,  the  patent  to  Dyer  does  not 
show  an  air-duct  with  a  pivoted  section  but  the  whole  air- 
duct  appears  to  be  removable.  Regarding  the  sixth  (former  7) 
claim,  while  the  regulation  of  the  motor  per  se  may  not  be 
patentable,  the  combination  in  which  a  regulable  motor  is 
included  as  a  separate  element  seems  to  be  new.  Concern¬ 
ing  the  eighth  claim  (former  10)  applicant  does  not  find 
the  adjustable  deflecting  boards  in  the  Whitmore  patent  nor 
does  he  find  the  adjustable  and  removable  deflecting  boards 
in  the  Shelly  patent. 

Very  respectfully, 

Thos.  A.Edison, 

By 

Attorney. 

Case/Vo,  £o  a 

"" . ' 


Orange ,  N.J. 
Deoe.ber  4,1903, 


3, 


H.H.O. 


j»r=e=. 

“Tho  Commissioner  of  P 
Washington,  D.  C.’ 


^3  v"_ 


department  of  the  interior, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 


Washington,  d.  c., 


January  fi,  19<W. 


Thomas  A.  Mi  non, 

Carn  Prank  I>.  Hyer,  JAN  6  1S04 

'  orange,  IT. J.  j 

Please' find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your,  application, 

#138,438,  -f.13.ort  J an,  9,  1903,  for  Separating  or  Grading  Apparatus. 


Commissioner  of.  Patents, 


Casa  aB  amended  Deo.  B,  1903,  further  considered. 

Claim  1  la  rejected  as  squarely  mat  In  367,389,  Whit, a  of  rec¬ 
ord.  In  t,hia  (fig.  3)  la  shown  a  fan,  a  pannage  leading  therefrom 
and  delivering  its  blast,  through  the  thin  at, ream  of  material  from  t ha 
hopper  Pj  a  nettling  oh  amber  formed  by  the  partitlona  P,  I.,  the  board 
i  and  the  top  of  the  oanlng;  and  a  pannage  back  t,o  the  fan.  :■  The 
olalm  in  substantially  mat  also  in  Shumaker  of  record. 

Claim  3  is  rajaotad  an  destitute  of  indention  in  view  of  the 
references  for  olnim  1. 

Claim  3  is  rej noted  in  view  of  Bhflmaker  of  record,  in  which 
are  shown  two  return  passages  J,  J,  to, the  fan.  . 

Claim  4  dintinguishes  from  Bhumaker  substantially  only  *r  to 
the  pivoted  section  of  fine.  The  purpose  of  pivoting  this  neotion 
is  to  penait  aooenn  to  the  fan,  and  inanmuoh  an  it  in  old  to  provide 
doors  tp  permit  access  to  the  interior  of  an  air  passage  or  fan  (nna 
X  of  616,189,  Huntley,  Ceo.  30,  1098,  drain  Separators,  Gravity,  R) 
the  pivoting  of  a  portion  of  applicant's  flue  must  be  held  to  be  a 
mere  shop  expedient,  not  involving  invention.  Claim  4  is  therefore 
rejected  in  view  of  Shumaker  and  Huntley.  Applioant  is  required  to 
illustrate  the  pivotal  oonneotions  and  Joints  more  clearly.. 

Claim  B  is  for  a  mere  duplication  of  separators  operated  by  a 


fit 


-  -SdiBon  -  8  #138,488 

common  motor.  if,  in  raj  eoted  An  view  of  Shumaker  and  3.(58,3.88, 

Downton,  of  reoord. 

I  Claim  6  1b  rejected  An  view  of  Shumaker.  While  Shnenaker  floes 

I  not  show  tha  regulation  of  the  feed-roller'  a  spaed,  this  As  Amp3,ied 
^  j  in  a  measure  from  tha  faot  that,  mills  are  generally  dr  Aran  by  engine 
i  or  of, bar  equivalent  power  whioh  a r«  practically  AnvarAab3,y  provided 
I  with  spa ad  vary Ann  means.  fjertainlyno  invention  As  involved  An 
the  regulation  of  the  speed  of  the  various  parts  of  a  machine  of  thi 
type.  Applionnt  does  not  show  the  moans  for  varying  the  speed  of 
his  motor. 

Claim  7  is  rejected  An  view  of  White  or  Rhuaroaker,  and  835,048, 
Holt,  Aug.  38,  1894,  Chop  Graders,  Gravity*  o  fif'd  d  of  Holt  antioi- 
;  pate  applicant*  s  defleotors.  '•> 

Claim  8  is  rejected  An  view  of  Whits  or  Rhusmakar,  and  388,954,  > 

,T;.^vM  j3eBBer,  April  HR,  1883,  Chop  Graders,  Gravity}  or  Hoe,  Aug. 

^•  v28,  1894,ibt.e)rafia^iroalfc  SeparAtors,  pry.  , 

>  Claim  9  is  rejected  upon  the  references  for  o3.alr«  8.  t 

m  ^ 

|5:  v;:'.  V  .  : 


35xarainer, 

Hi.  via  ion  7X7 


UHITED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE. 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

Improvement  in  Separating  or 
Grading  Apparatus. 

Filed  January  9,  1903. 

Serial  No.  138,428. 


BOOM  NO.  243. 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS: 
SIR  :■ 


In  accordance  vdth  the  Examiner’s 
requirement  of  January  6th,  1904,  please  amend  Figures  1 
and  8  of  the  drawings  in  the  above  entitled  case  by  adding 
thereto  the  parts  indicated  by  pencil  in  the  accompanying 
photographic  copies,  and  charge  the  cost  of  same  to  my 
account. 


Respectfully, 

By 

Orange,  N.J. 

August  /  1904 


'  Hir.  Attorney^. 


j 


united  states  patent  oppice. 


I  Thomas  A,  Edison, 

Improvement  in  Separating 
or  Grading  Apparatus, 

Piled  January  9,  1903, 
Serial  No.  138,428. 


ROOM  NO.  243. 


j  HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS: 

3  I  R: 

Replying  to  office  action  of  January  6, 

||  1904,  please  amend  the  above  entitled  case  as  follows: 

Page  4,  line  1,  after  "product"  insert  "The  motor 
control  means  shown  is  a  rheostat  31  connected  in  series 
J  with  the  field  of  the  motor". 

Page  5,  line  26  after  "outwardly"  insert  "as  indi- 
!  cated  in  dotted  lines". 

Cancel  claims  1,  2  and  3. 

Claim  4,  line  8,  oanoel  "having  a  pivoted  section" 
Same  claim,  line  9,  after  "fan"  insert pthat~por- 
tion  of  the  air  duct  whioh  is  adjacent  to  the  fan  inlet, 
j  tein®  pivotally  supported  at  a  point  removed  from  said  in- 


I  let. "/Renumber  this  claim  as~cl^toTT 
Cancel  olaim  5. 

Claim  6,  line  8,  cancel  "operating  the  fan  and 


I  roller  feed"  and  insert  in  place  thereof/»driving  the  fan 
and  roller  feed  at  any  desired  speed,  the  connections -being 
such  that  any  increase  or  diminution  of  the  speed  of  the  faij 
is  accompanied  by  a  corresponding  increase  or  diminution 
in  the  speed  of  the  roller  _ _ _ 


Renumber  this  claim  as  claim  2.  Cancel  claims  7, 

||  8  and  9,  and  insert  in  place  thereof,  the  following  claims: 


3.  An  Improved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  separa¬ 
tion  of  finer  andxsoarser  particles  in  grtfund  material,  com¬ 
prising  in  oombinatfqn  a  settling  chamber, \a  fan  having  its 
discharge  duct  leading\into  the  settling  chwnber,  two  sets 
of  adjustable  deflectcngVboards  in  the  discharge  duct,  wheij-e- 
by  the  air  passing  through,  the  same  will  be  deflected 
downwardly  and  then  upwardly^  the  adjustment  of  the  boards  I 
of  one  set  being  independent  of  that  of  the  other  set,  and] 
means  for  feeding  a  relatively  thin  stream  of  pulverized 
material  to  the  deflecting  boards,  substantially  as  set 
forth. 

4.  An  improved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  separaj 
tion  of  finer  and  coarser  particles  in  ground  material, 
comprising  in  combination  a  fettling  chamber,  a  fan  havingj 
its  discharge  duct  leading  into  the  settling  chambW, 
set  of  deflecting  boards  in  the  ijl scharge  duct,  and  v 
port  for  said  boards,  said  support\being  removably  seVured] 
to  the  walls  of  said  duct,  one  of  whl^h  is  apertured  to, 
permit  the  longitudinal  withdrawal  of  the  boards,  suhstan-| 
tially  as  set  forth. 

Dj  An  improved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  sepa¬ 
ration  of  finer  and  coarser  particles  in  ground  material, 
comprising  in  combination  a  settling  chamber,  a  fan  having 
its  discharge  duct  leading  into  the  settling  chamber,  a 
set  of  deflecting  boards  in  the  discharge  duct,  and  a 

support  for  said  boards,  said  support  being  removably  se¬ 

ts 

cured  to  one  of  the  walls  of  said  duct  and  closing  an 
toe 

aperture  through  which  the  hoards  may  longitudinally  with¬ 
drawn,  substantially  as  Bet  forth. 

.  ,  Js 

¥  An  improved  apparatus  for  effeoting  a  separa¬ 

tion  of  finer  and  coarser  parti oles  in  ground  material, 
comprising  in  oo&bi nation  a  settling  chamber,  a  fan  havingl 


its  discharge  dust  leading  into  the  settling  ohamber,  a  set 


in  said  wall,  so  as  to  close  the  same,  substantially  as  set 


REMARKS. 

The  claims  as  amended  are  believed  to  be  patentable 
over  the  references.  Claim  2  specifies  that  the  connections 
between  the  fan  and  roller  feed  are  such  that  any  increase 
or  diminution  in  the  speed  of  the  fan  is  accompanied  by  a 
corresponding  increase  or  diminution  in  the  speed  of  the 
roller  feed.  In  the  reference  there  is  no  such  connection, 
the  speed  of  the  fan  being  regulated  by  means  of  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  the  drive  v/heel  N,  (Figures  1  and  2)  while  the  speed 
of  the  feed  roller  is  not  regulable,  except  as  the  examiner 
suggests,  by  means  of  the  engine  which  furnishes  the  power 
for  the  mill.  This  means  of  regulation,  however,  is  not 
such  as  to  anticipate  the  claim,  for  the  reason  that  such 
engines  always  have  other  machinery  to  drive,  and  it  would 
be  entirely  impracticable  :rto  slow,  the  engine  down  in  order 
to  adjust  the  speed  of  the  feed  roller.  It  might  be  added, 
that  the  speed  of  the  feed  roller  could  also  be  regulated 
by  varying  the  steam  pressure  in  the  boilers,  but  this  ob¬ 
viously  fails  as  an  anticipation  of  the  claims.  Applicant 
appears  to  be  the  first  to  regulate  the  speed  of  the  fan 
and  of  the  roller  feed  simultaneously,  so  that  when  the  fan 
runs  at  a  diminished  speed,  less  material  will  be  fed  in  to 
be  operated  upon. 

The  drawings  have  been  amended  in  aocordanoe  with 
the  Examiner's  requirements.  An  allowance  is  respectfully 
solicited. 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON, 

By 

Orange,  N.J. 

His  Attorney. 

August  /  1904. 


_ _ _ -tOy  , 

. {O'  <&S>T^Z  S<^> 

8m:  Vis  -Jl. 

Referring  to  your  order,  dated  ... 
drawing  in  the  application  of. . 


FVv~—z;  , 


/■ 


F 


for  Patent  for  improvement  in 


filed 


r..<&iste&y.  .t 


.% _ ,  190..?,  you  are  advised  that  the  drawing  was  corrected 


and  forwarded  to  the  Examiner  in  charge  of  the  case,  on  _ 190  Jr** . 


By  direction  of  the  Commissioner, 

Very  respectfully, 


/^/ 0  /</  J 

a. 


C^3LL,.  5^  _  j 

Chief  Clerk.  ’ 


i 

i# 


Oat*  at  unM  Aug.  2,  1904,  further  eonsldered. 

•'  •  •  ■  ^  v-  In 

Claim  1  ie  ra)  voted  a>  destitute  of  patentable  novelty,,  Tie* 

of  Shumaker  of  record,  and  168,085,  Buokvalter,  Deo"*  28,  1874, 

Hot ary  Bolt*.  Buekwalter  ehowe  a  hinged  aeotion  6  of  the  eondnlt  . 
to  the  fan—  aee  fig.  2  e ape o tally. 

The  2nd  olalm  Is  rejeoted  in  view  of  476,231,  Mills,  May,  31, 

1892,  Chop  Oraders,  Gravity}  and  British  patent  17,887,  HenoOh, 

Oot.  6,  1892,  Ore  A  Coal,  Separators  Dry,  shoving  feed  rollers  and 
:  ^^hMrtann  operated  from  a  oommon  aouroe  of  pover.  The  uae  of  a  regulable  ;; 

motor  to  drive  the  shaft  furnishing  power  to  both  would  be  a  natter 
!  of  aliaple  aggregation  In  view  of  the  every  day  practice  of  providing 

regulable  pover  for  all  types  of  maohlnery.  The  aleotrle  motor  and  <« 
rheostat  are  near  matters  of  euoh  oommon  knowledge  that  It  Is  not 
thought  neoessary  to  olts  an  lnstanoe  of  a  suitor  and  rheostats per  S£. : 

the  3d  olala  Is  rejeoted  upon  the  ground  of  new  matter  in  lmply-t  -: 
log  that  the  boards  are  adjustable  as  sets,  when  applicant  has  shentt  ■; 
then  as  merely  Individually  adjustable.  The  olala  Is  rejeoted  ill 
i  view. of  Moo,  of  reoord,  and  British  patent  8680,  Abel,  Deo  .87,  1881^; 

i  Chop  Oraders,  Gravity,  shoving  dsfleotors  adjustable  as  setsi^or 

j,  281,B08,  VanGelder,  Inly  84,  1883}  or  345,177,  Rev,  July- 6,- 1886,' 


Shaking  Bolt*,  showing  mu  of  individually  adjustable  deflectors. 

t.;.01aima  4,  B  and  ft  arc  rejeored  in  view  of  380,097,  Davis,  Waroh 
.  27,v.jlft88j  Ofaop  Oraders,  Gravity,  whloh  shows  a  support  for  atssrisf" 
of  deifiootors  which  is  bodily  removable  -  see  fig.  a  -  and  308,628, 
Konofc,  Sept.  23,  1884,  Boreens  &  Biddles;  or  663,634,  West,  Jan.  28, 
1896,  Amalgsaat or s ,  Plate,  in  whloh  doors  or  removable  wall  sections 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPPICE. 


Thomas  A.  Edison 

IMPROVEMENT  IN  SEPARATING  OR 
GRADING  APPARATUS 

Piled  January  9,  1903 
Serial  No.  138,428 


Room  No.  243 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS 
SIR:- 


Replying  to  Office  action  of  September 
28,  1904,  please  amend  the  above  entitled  case  as  follows: 
J  Cancel  claim  1. 

Rewrite  claim  2  as  follows,  the  numeral  being 
changed  to  1. 


A 


1.  An  improved  apparatus  for  effecting  the  separa¬ 
tion  of  finefr‘ from  coarser  particles  in  ground  material, 
comprising  in  combination  a  settlfc 
.trunk  leading  thereto,  a  fan  for  creating  an  air  current 
through  Baid  blast  trunk,  a  roller  feed  for  oausing  a  re¬ 
latively  thin  stream  of  pulverulent  material  to  pass  down¬ 
wardly  across  the  blast  tnunk,  so 
the  air  current  theiein^mean^fo'r 

K 

of  the  fan  so  as  to  produoe  any  desired  strength  of  air 
current^ and  connections  whereby  any  increase  or  diminu¬ 
tion  in  the  speed  of  the  fan  produces  a  corresponding 
inorease  or  diminution  in  the  speed  of  the  roller  feed, 
substantially  as  set  forth 

Cancel  claims  3  and  4. 

Claim  5,  line  6  after  "boards"  insert  -  said 


as  to  ,be  acted  upon  by 


'boards  being  secured  at  one  end  to  the  support  and. 

^  Claim  6,  line  6  after  "boards"  insert  -  Bald 
boards  being  secured  at  one  end  to  the  support  and. 

■-  Claim  6  line  7  ohange  "said  walls"  to  -  the  walls 
of  said  duot. 

Renumber  claims  5  and  6  as  2  and  3  respectively. 

REMARKS 

Claim  1  as  amended  clearly  distinguishes  from  the 
references.  In  Patent  No.  476,231  and  British  patent  No. 
17,827,  the  strength  of  the  blast  is  regulated  by  means  of 
a  valve  and  no  means  are  provided  for  controlling  the 
speed  of  the  fan.  It  results  from  this  that  the  faad 
roller  is  always  driven  at  the  same  Bpeed  and  supplies 
the  same  quantity  of  material,  regardless  of  the  strength 
of  the  blast.  These  devices  therefore  fail  to  accomplish 
the  desirable  results  which  are  secured  by  applicant's 
construction,  whereby  as  the  blast  is  increased  to  augment 
the  pressure,  the  load  of  material  supplied  by  the  roller 
feeds  will  be  proportionately  inoreaBed,  so  that  the  max¬ 
imum  duty  may  at  all  times  be  imposed  upon  the  blast. 

This  feature  being  entirely  novel  and  the  claim 
being  limited  thereto,  it  ie  thought  that  same  should  be 
allowed. 

Claims  2  and  3  have  been  amended  to  clearly 
distinguish  from  the  references.  In  Patent  No.  380,097 
a  series  of  deflectprs  are  mounted  to  a  frame  so  that  they 
may  all  be  removed  at  onoe,  but  there  is  no  provision  whew 
by  the  frame  may  be  readily  withdrawn  from  the  blast  tube. 

In  patents  Nob.  305,528  and  553,634  the  deflect¬ 
ing  boards  er  screens  are  not  removable  longitudinally, 
but  laterally.  Consequently,  it  is  necessary  to  remove 
the  entire  side  of  the  operating  ohamber  in  order  to  re- 
-  2  - 


move  the  deflectors.  Applicant  secures  his  deflectors 
at  their  ends  to  the  support  and  removes  them  longitudi¬ 
nally  through  a  small  opening  in  one  of  the  walls  of  the 
blast  tube.  This  structure  is  decidedly  preferable  to 
those  of  the  references,  and  is  believed  to  be  patentable. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON, 

By 

/Q-zf — 

His  Attorney. 

Orange,  N.  j. 

February  1905. 


M.E.O. 


2—260. 


united  states  patent  ophce. 


Thomas  A.  Edison 

IMPROVEMENT  IN  SEPARATING  OR  GRADING1: 
APPARATUS 

Piled  January  9,  1903 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS 


Replying  to  Offioa  action  of  April 
7,  1905,  pleaBe  amend  the  above  entitled  oaee  as  followe: 

„  V 

Page  4,  line  1,  after  "product"  and  before  the 
insert  of  the  amendment  filed  Auguet  8,  1904,  insert  - _ 


and  all  throttling  or  regulating  valves  may  be  dispensed 

with -  Same  line,  after  "The"  insert  -  valueless 

Olaim  1,  line  3,  before  "blast"  insert  _ 

single,  horizontal,  valveless  -  Same  olaim,  line  8, 

after  "therein"  insert  -  defleoting  boardB  or  plates 

below  the  feed  opening -  Same  olaim,  line  10,  after 

■current ■  insert  a  oomma 


I  The  referenoes  fail  to  show  the  combination  of  a 

fan  and  feed  roll  and  means  for  simultaneously  varying 
the  speed  of  both.  In  Patent  No.  321,658,  oited  by  the 
Examiner,  the  patentee  states  -  "The  force  of  the  air- 
ourrents  is  primarily  regulated  by  the  speed  and  adjust¬ 
ment  of  the  fans,  and  seoondarily,  by  adjustments  of  the 
valves  E."  This  statement  evidently  means  that  the  driv¬ 
ing  mechanism  of  the  fans  is  so  designed  as  regards  elses 
of  driving  pulleys,  else  and  number  of  blades  of  the  fans, 


©to . ,  as  to  produce  the  maximum  blast  whioh  will  be  requir¬ 
ed  In  the  operation  of  the  device ,  the  blast  being  then 
throttled  down  by  valves  to  produoe  weaker  air-ourrents . 
There  is  no  means  for  regulating  the  speed  of  the  fans 
after  the  maohine  has  been  onoe  Bet  up  and  the  driving 
belts  plaoed  upon  driving  pulleys.  Although  figure  2  shows 
the  shaft  of  the  fan  provided  with  three  pulleys  of  dif¬ 
ferent  size,  this  arrangement  is  not  for  the  purpose  of 
varying  the  speed  of  the  fan  beoause  Figure  1  olearly 
shows  that  the  smallest  pulley  is  for  driving  the  roller 
feed,  the  middle  size  pulley  for  driving  the  fan  G  and 
the  large  pulley  for  furnishing  power  to  the  shaft  to 
whioh  it  1b  secured.  The  direotion  of  travel  of  the  main 
driving  belt  is  suoh  as  to  render  it  impossible  for  it 
to  run  on  the  same  pulley  with  either  of  the  other  beltB. 

It  is  olear  therefore  that  there  is  no  anticipation  of 
the  claimed  structure  in  this  patent.  The  other  references 
also  fail  to  anticipate  the  olaim  fot  the  Bame  reason, 
namely,  no  means  are  shown  or  suggested  for  simultaneous¬ 
ly  varying  the  speed  of  the  fan  and  roller*. feed. 

The  reason  why  applicant  is  able  to  diBpenBe 
with  throttling  valves  is  beoause  he  uses  a  single  hori¬ 
zontal  blast  trunk  aoross  whioh  a  relatively  thin  stream 
of  pulverulent  material  passes,  and  the  air  current  hae 
only  a  single  function  to  perform  instead  of  several  func¬ 
tions  as  in  the  grading  apparatus  of  Henooh  Ct  reoord  and 
many  of  the  grain  or  middlings  purifiers  Bhown  in  the 
references  of  reoord. 

The  olaim  under  consideration  has  been  amended 
to  more  olearly  define  the  structure  by  whioh  one  le  en¬ 
abled  to  dispense  with  regulating  valves;  the  structure 
olaimed  is  believed  to  be  patentably  novel,  and  an  allow- 
2. 


anoe  of  the  olaim  is  respectfully  solioited. 

The  last  reference,  namely,  Patent  Mo.  402,400, 
cited  against  claims  2  and  3  is  believed  to  fail  ae  an 
anticipation  of  the  olaims  since  the  deflecting  board 
frames  do  not  slide  longitudinally  with  respect  to  the 
boards,  but  transversely  in  the  direotion  of  the  guides  b, 
b',  eto.  Hone  of  the  references  disolose  def looting  boards 
tthioh  are  removable  in  a  longitudinal  direction  and  sinoe 
the  claims  are  limited  to  this  particular  oonstruotion 
besides  other  details  which  are  not  suggested  in  any  way 
by  the  references,  the  olaims  are  believed  to  be  patent- 
ably  distinguished  therefrom.  A  reconsideration  and 
allowance  of  the  same  is  therefore  requested. 

Orange,  Hew  Jersey 
January*' 4th,  ’1906; 


Respectfully  submitted, 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON 


His  attorney. 


I 


3. 


Case  an  amended  and  argued  January  5,  1906,  further  oonsldered. 

In  Wakeford,  of  reoord,  the  speed  of  the  fBn  is  (with  the 
•adjustment")  the  primary  faotor  in  the  regulation}  and  since  the  feefe 
roller  is  driven  from  the  same,,  source,  any  variation  in  the  fan 
speed  will  result  In  a  corresponding  variation  in  the  speed. of. 
the  feed, roller.  It  is  immaterial  whether  or  not  other  adjusting 
,  means  are  present;  the  maohine  of  this  reference  possesses  the 
capability  forming  the  basis  of  the  1st  claim.  The  application  .. 
of  the  same  adjustment  to  any  of  the  previously  oited  references; 
e.g.,  466,87o,  Barnard  *  Barnard,  would  meet  the  1st  claim,  which 
is  rejected  upon  the  two  patents  noted. 

The  removability  of  the  deflecting  boards,  upon  whioh  the 
novelty  of  the  2nd  end  3rd  claims  must  depend,  does  not  appear  to 
%  have  any -bearing  upon  the  funotion  of  the  maohine.  Hothing  mare 
appears  to  be  involved  than  the  mere  removability  of  parts  of'ithO' 
devioe  for  aooess  thereto,  and  in  view  of  the  references  of  . 

especially  Monok  and  ])avis  (note  that  0  of  Davis  is  stated  to  b«, 
bodily  removable,)  it  does  not  appear  to  the  examiner  to  involve  t-  \ • 
invention' or  anything  more  than  meohanloal  skill,  especially  when  '  - 

the,  structure  conferring  removability  is  merely  the  same  sb  is;  em¬ 
ployed  In  ordinary  drawers.  The  2nd  and  3rd  olalms  are  rejected  as 
lacking  invention  over  the  references  of  reoord. 

Xxamlaer  |©iv.  XXV . 


Address. 


yz^i. 


■  :f&, 


. (Mar^^... 


Examiner’s  Room  No ,...:ss/...^..z4..:... 


Filed  /J  /.fJ3 . 

Assignee  ...  &. ■ . f  JL*^ 

Ass’g’t  Exec .l^jo./ixb Recorded  Jnfyjt.tfJr.lb Liber  ..?/>/ Page && 

...  x^  . ,/^/~a . . 


Patent  No.  UP  ./  fj±&  Issued  . 


Ill'  13 


ACTIONS. 

"  ~  ~  -■  ■-■  -'•  ,/f//3  l(i 

:)  Zc^/^c.c^Oa/ 1 jQe  d ,  y  /  ?6  3  ia  (^2^jc....k?JJ  J.?A  f 

4  if  If  a  </  10  sJJ^LfJA 

r,  /;  /ff  /  20  U^{^/7^.cf.(£lc  C^  ^...LStJa. 

0  z2^^r  <*£</ ^  0fsi  (Uf. 

7 '•  <?, .... /£.<?  ^22  f£v?x^x  / 

n  0/  ^..  ^  J1.  ^  (sJ-^i/m  '^L^^  9pc^_  z</.  //?//. _ 

/ff37  24..  Clu^^cci^ 

f,  /  ffA,<iis . iXiJLtn^jus>l  listA*  3  \ 


.  /..f <2  4  20  JcLU-yiu^ff  .  iv  JLi  3/.^// 

c/3y  /fid  C,  20 't^L.itvxJ1  Aol.  d<juu  S  /':■/  f/%. 

. ^  ^  ■  /i/£c?.f/.../.  fM.Vt . .-&=<./<£.  (f/t  s 

I3y...  /  fi.fi 4>-  .  28 . ($?<?<ia/:. . ^5<"'  /fiZ/ffy^ 

..($sxt<*r!; /.?.//  29 . . .  t  .  V  / 

■34/m™ . . 

FRANK  'L-vOYER^ 

,.'  'Os^Counsel, 

_ _ _ OrangeS&ew  Jersey. 


|'|,>;  7|.,  14 

|('  tv,  t;,  16 

fesi 

$SHk  -_ 


August  2,  1911. 


V/.  S.  Mallory,  Esq. , 

Edison  Portland  Cemont  Co., 

Stewartsvi  lie ,  IT .  J . 

My  dear  Mr.  Mallory: 

Mr.  Edison  filed  an  application  on  Janu¬ 
ary  13,  1903,  covering  improvements  in  Giant  Rolls,  wherein 
each  roll  was  driven  "by  a  separate  motor.  Shis  ease  has  now 
"boon  allowed,  all  the  claims  ashed  for  being  allowed,  includ¬ 
ing  some  additional  broader  claims  that  were  suggested  by  Mr. 
Hicks.  Shis  patent  when  issued  will  bo  very  comprehensive 
and  will,  I  bolieve,  cover  all  forms  of  Giant  Rolls  in  which 
a  separate  motor  is  used  for  each  roll.  She  final  fee 
requires  to  be  paid  bn  or  before  January  31,.  1912,  but  it 
is  generally  well  to  pay  the  final  foe  without  delay,  be¬ 
cause  at  any  time  before  tho  patent  actually  issues  the 
Examiner  can  call  it  back  to.  his  room  for  rejection. 

¥ou- spoke  to  me  some  time  ago  about  foreign 
patents,  and  it  occurs  to  me  that  if  there  is  any  immedi¬ 
ate  prospect  of  making  anything  out  of.  the  foreign  rights 
it  might  be  worth  while  to  file  the  patents  in  some  of  the 
important  foreign  countrios.  If  the  sale  of  foreign  rights 
is  purely  speculative ,  I  would  advise- against  going  to  this 
expense,  beoause  the  expense  1b  quite  high  and  annual  taxes 
require  to  bo  paid.  If,  however,  you  have  negotiations 


Mr.  W.  S.  Mallory-  2. 

in  view  that  look  reasonably  hopeful,  you  might  concluao 
to  do  something  with  the  foreign  patents. 

Of  course,  tho  matter  can  v;ait  until  Mr.  Edison 
returns,  subject,  however,  to  the  very  slight  risk  of  the 
case  being  recallod  by  tho  Examiner  for  rejection  or  intor- 
forenoo. 


Yours  very  truly, 


J?LD/IVAV 


General  Counsel. 


The  Edison  Crushing  Roll  Co. 

ROCK  CRUSHERS 

August  3,  1911. 

Mr.  Trank  1.  Dyer, 

Legal  Department , 

Orange ,  M.  J. 

My  dear  Mr.  Dyer:- 

Heplying  to  yourB  2nd,  would  state  that 
I  am  more  than  pleased  that  all  the  claims  in  the  Slant 
Boll  case  which  was  filed  Jan.  13th,  1903,  hadtbeen  allowed, 
and  I  think  it  would  be  wise  to  pay  the  final  fee  immediately 
so  not  to  run  the  risk  of  the  patent  being  recalled.  These 
patents  are  owned  by  Mr.  Edison,  so  the  payment  of  fee  is 
up  to  him,  and  I  would  suggest  that  you  give  Harry  instruc¬ 
tions  to  make  payment  immediately. 

The  matter  of  foreign  patents  we  will  dis¬ 
cuss  with  Mr.  Edison  on  his  return.  At  the  present  time  we 
have  a  negotiation  on  with  a  party  in  Italy,  but  it  has  not 
yet  reached  the  stage  where  we  can  tell  whether  there  are 
much  prospects  of  its  amounting  to  anything  or  not. 

Ho  doubt  some  of  your  boys  have  reported 
the  very  happy  frame  of  mind  Mr.  Edison  seemed  to  be  in  at 
the  ship  yesterday  just  before  Bailing.  I  really  think  that 
he  was  glad  to  get  away  and  get  a  rest,  and  I  hope  and 
believe  it  will  do  him  a  lot  of  good. 

Yours  very  truly, 

_ TOM-EBB _  ,, _ 


-74+M^  &  'tfezy  7  Vf 

/H?//«^/Z 


V\ 


August  21,  1911. 


W.  S.  Mallory,  Esq. , 

Edison  Portland  Cemont  Co. , 

Stewartsville ,  II.  J. 

My  dear  Mr.  Mallory: 

Please  pardgn  my  oversight  in  negleoting 
ttr  acknowledge  receipt  of  yours  of  the  3rd  inst. ,  which 
appears  to  have  heen  misplaced  among  my  papers. 

I  did  not  make  it  clear  that  if  we  should  pay  the 
final  fee  on  the  Giant  Roll  application  with  independent 
motors  and  the  patent  should  issue  it  would  then  he  too 
late  to  apply  for  foreign  patents.  If,  therefore,  it  is 
probable  that  Mr-  Edison  might  desire  foreign  patents,  the 
question  of  paying  the  final  fee  on  the  U.  8.  application 
should  bo  deferred  until  he  oah  decide  the  question.  How¬ 
ever,  if  the  Giant  Holla  .with  independent  motors  have  been 
described  in  publications  in  this  country  so  as  to  be  a 
matter  of  public  knowledge,  that  fact  would  be  sufficient 
to  invalidate  any  foreign  patents  that  might  be  granted 
provided  the  evidence  were  brought  out  in  defense.  If, 
therefore,  these  rolls  have  been1 described  and  it  is  reason¬ 
ably  certain  that  the  faot  would  be  known  to  any  possible 
infringers  in  foreign  countries  or  be  known  to  people  who 
might  buy  the  patents  and  therefore  put  them  on  their  guard 


17.  S.  Mallory,  Esq.-  2. 

as  to  their  value ,  1  see  no  necessity  for  waiting  any  longer 
in  paying  the  foe  on  the  U.  S.  case. 

Another  point  that  ooours  to  me  is  that  if  these 
rolls  havo  boon  described  in  printed  publications  and  not¬ 
withstanding  this  fact  you  should  go  ahead  and  take  out  for¬ 
eign  patents,  then  any  people  that  you  sola  the  Rights  to 
might  havo  ground  for  a  suit  on  the  theory  that  you  had 
sola  them  an  invalid  patent.  They  might  tales  this  posi¬ 
tion  if  the  enterprise  did  not  turn  out  profitably.  If 
there  is  a  likelyhooa  of  this  situation  arising,  it  might 
bo  wiser  to  attompt  to  negotiate  any  foreign  rights  entirely 
independent  of  patontB,  because  to  soil  an  invalid  patont 
in  a  foreign  country  might  seriously  complicate  the  entire 
situation. 

Yours  very  truly, 

FL3/ 1 1717  Gonoral  Counsel. 


jMjL 


TRe  Edison  Portland  Cement  Co. 


-raph,  Freight  and  Passenger  Station,  NEW  VILLAGE,  N.  J. 

p.  o,  address.  STEWARTSVILLE,  N.  J. 


AugUBt  24,  1911. 

Mr.  *rank  L.  Uyer, 

Edison  Laboratory, 

Orange,  N.  J. 

Dear  Mr.  Dyer:- 

Bep lying  to  yours  21st,  relative  to 
payment  of  the  final  fee  on  the  Giant  Roll  application 
with  independent  motors,  would  state  that  there  have 
already  been  some  publications  covering  the  operation 
of  the  Rolls  with  independent  motors. 


I  am  enclosing  a  copy  of  a  paper  read 
by  Mr.  Mason  in  June,  1911,  before  the  American  Society 
or  Mechanical  Engineers,  and  you  will  note  on  pages  427 
and  428  that  reference  is  made  to  motor  driven  Rolls,  and 
there  have  been  other  publications  which  I  am  unable  to 
locate  at  this  writing. 


Under  these  circumstances,  it  would 
seem  wise  to  arrange  to  pay  the  final  fee  promptly.  In 
case  there  is  any  danger  of  having  the  patent  issued  owing 
to  the  delay,  my  judgment  would  be  to  pay  the  final  fee 
immediately.  However,  if  you  think  it  1b  wiser  to  wait 


until  Mr.  Edison' 8  return,  such  action  will  be  quite 
agreeable  to  me. 

Yours  very  truly. 


WSM-HBS 


President 


EI7CL0SUBE:-  1 


57.  S.  Mallory,  Esq., 

Edison  Portland  Cement  Co. , 

Stcwartsvid lo ,  II.  J. 

Soar  Mr.  Mallory: 

^^Iburs  of  tho  24th  inst.  has  boon  received, 
accompanying  Mr.  Mason' 3  paper,  and  upon  looking  it  over  1 
find  that  the  reference  to  the  idea  of  a  separate  motor  for 
driving  each  roll  is  so  indefinite  that  1  do  not  think  this 
particular  paper  could  he  considered  as  a  prior  publication 
that  would  injure  our  ohanees  of  securing  valid  foreign 
patents.  You  say,  however,  that  there  are  other  publica¬ 
tions  describing  these  roll3,  and  perhaps  with  these  the 
case  will  be  different.  At  any  rate,  unless  we  are  sure 
that  there  has  been  a  complete  and  full  disclosure  of  this 
particular  invention  in  some  printed  publication  I  believe 
it  would  be  well  to  wait  until  Mr.  Edison  returns  so  that 
he  can  decide  whether  or  not  to  do -anything  with  foreign 
applications. 

Yours  very  truly. 


EID/IW57 


General  Counsel. 


Deoember  6,  1911, 


Mr.  Dyer:- 

Mr.  Edison's  application  for  Improvements  in 
Giant  Rolls,  Eolio  34,  was  allowed  July  31,  1911,  and  the 
final  fee  should  be  paid  before  January  31,  1912.  The 
divisional  application  on  the  means  for  unloading  and 
dumping  the  skips  has  been  filed,  so  that  the  application 
is  in  condition  for  the  payment  of  the  final  fee  at  any 
time  now. 

The  attaohed  correspondence  indicates  that  you 
had  it  in  mind  to  take  up  the  question  of  foreign  appli¬ 
cations  with  Mr.  Edison  before  paying  the  final  fee  on 
this  application. 

jh 


\7  '  ^  ’  n  ' 

fey  cnZ  !  .  v  > 

^  I  i  -  h  f- 


A-*c- /«rr  ><)  <  • 


Applicant. 


Address. 


Petition 


Zo  the  Commissioner  of  patents : 

YOUR  petitioner  ,  THOMAS  A.  EDI  SO!?,  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  residing  .and  having  hi3  post  office  address  at  Llewellyn 
Park,  Orange,  in  the  County  of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey, 

PRAYS  THAT  LETTERS  PATENT  MAY  BE  GRANTED  TO  HIM  FOR  THE  IMPROVE?, 113117  IH 

STORAGE  BATTERS’-  CHARGING  APPARATUS  $Casa  No  .  1100) 


SET  FORTH  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION;  AND  HE  HEREBY  APPOINTS  DYER  AND  DYER 
(A  FIRM  COMPOSED  OF  RICHARD  N.  DYER  AND  FRANK  L.  DYER),  OF  NO.  31  NAS8AU  STREET, 
NEW  YORK  CITY,  HIS  ATTORNEYS,  WITH  FULL  POWER  OF  SUBSTITUTION  AND  REVOCATION, 
TO  PROSECUTE  THIS  APPLICATION,  TO  MAKE  ALTERATIONS  AND  AMENDMENTS  THEREIN, 
TO  RECEIVE  THE  PATENT,  AND  TO  TRANSACT  ALL  BUSINESS  IN  THE  PATENT  OFFICE  CON¬ 


NECTED  THEREWITH. 


SPECIFICATION. 

TO  ALL  WHOM  IT  KAY  CONCERN: 

Be  it  known  that  I,  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  residing  at  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange,  Essex 
County,  State  of  How  Jersey,  have  invented  a  certain  new 
and  useful  IMPROVEMENT  IN  STORAGE  BATTERY  CHARGING  APPARA¬ 
TUS,  of  which  the  following  is  a  Bpec  if  ic'ation: - 

Wjr  invention  relates  to  improved  apparatus  for 
oharging  storage  batteries,  and  my  object  is  to  provide  an 
apparatus  for  the  purpose  adapted  particularly  for  oharging 
storage  batteries  in  private  residences,  for  isolated 
lighting, or  for  the  propulsion  of  automobiles.  A  suitable 
apparatus  for  this  purpose  should  be  extremely  simple,  so 
as  not  to  require  expert  attention.  For  this  reason, 
steam-engines  are  impracticable.  Although  the  modern  in¬ 
ternal  combustion  gasoline  engine  presents  in  a  very  simple 
and  compact  form  a  satisfactory  motor  for  the  operation  of 
a  generator  for  oharging  storage  batteries,  the  necessity 
for  the  use  of  gasoline  makeB  such  an  apparatus  extremely 
dangerous,  so  that  the  rate  of  fire  insurance  is  prohibit¬ 
ively  high.  With  my  present  apparatus,  I  make  use  of  an 
internal  combustion  engine  of  any  suitable  type,  and  there¬ 
fore  secure  all  the  advantages  due  to  the  simplicity  and 
efficiency  of  these  engines,  while  at  the  same  time  I  dis¬ 
pense  entirely  with  the  necessity  for  using  a  highly  in¬ 
flammable  concentrated  fuel  like  gasoline. 

In  carrying  my  invention  into  effect,  I  employ  an 
internal  combustion  engine  for  driving  a  generator  which 
ohargos  the  storage  batteries,  and  I  supply  to  the  engine 
an  explosive  gaseous  mixture  consisting  of  atmoBpherio  air 


-1- 


and  cartoon  monoxide,  the  latter  toeing  produced  in  a  very 
Dimple  form  of  generator,  preferatoly  toy  the  incomplete  com- 
toustion  of  charcoal.  Preferatoly  the  limited  air  Bupply 
furnished  to  the  gas  generator  is  first  saturated  with  water 
vapor,  aB  I  shall  hereafter  describe,  whereby  the  efficiency 
of  the  apparatus  is  materially  increased.  An  ash-separator 
is  interposed  between  the  gas  generator  and  the  engine,  bo 
as  to  separate  and  cause  the  deposit  of  any  fine  partioles 
of  solid  matter  which  may  become  entrained  with  the  gas, 
thus  preventing  any  dogging  or  obstruction  of  the  engine 
valves  from  this  cause.  The  exhaust  from  the  engine  leads 
to  a  large  drum  or  receptaole,  whioh  acts  ftot  only  as  a 
muffler  tout  also  as  a  heater  for  the  room  in  which  the  ap¬ 
paratus  is  located,  and  from  this  receptacle  the  products 
of  combustion  pass  to  a  suitable  stack  or  flue.  In  this 
way,  I  not  only  derive  energy  from  the  gas,  due  to  its  ex¬ 
plosion  in  the  engine  cylinder,  tout  effectively  utilize  the 
same  for  heating  purposes. 

Owing  to  the  convertibility  of  the  electrical  gen¬ 
erator,  I  first  operate  the  same  as  a  motor  receiving  cur¬ 
rent  from  the  storage  batteries,  and- thus  start  the  engine 
in  operation.  As  soon  rb  the  latter  oommenoea  its  proper 
cycle,  due  to  the  eaq>losion  of  successive  charges  of  the  ex- 
plosive  mixture  in  its  cylinder,  the  load  ia  immediately  as¬ 
sumed;  the  motor  begins  then  to  operate  as  an  electric  gen¬ 
erator,  and  the  current  thus  generated  charges  the  storage 
batteries. 

In  this  way  I  secure  a  very  simple ,  cheap  ,  eff  i¬ 
cient  and  s.afe  device  for  the  purpose,  and  one  whioh  can 
toe  operated  by  any  unskilledpersoi},  since  all  that  is  re¬ 
quired  to  start  the  apparatus  is  to  first  charge  the  gas 
generator  with  charooal  or  other  fuel,  start  contouBtion 
therein,  and  then  elose  the  switch  to  oonneot  the  eleotrio. 
cal  generator  with  the  storage  battery.  The  device 


then  operate  automatically  to  generate  current  until  all  the 
fuel  hae  been  consumed. 

In  order  that  the  invention  may  be  better  under¬ 
stood,  attention  is  directed  to  the  accompanying  drawing, 
showing  a  diagrammatio  view  of  the  preferred  apparatus. 

The  gas  generator  is  provided  with  a  oast-iron  shell 
1  having  a  flrebriok  lining  2,  a  grate  or  grid  3,  a  fuel 
hopper  4,  and  a  paoked  door  6  through  whioh  fuel  1b  intro¬ 
duced.  leading  from  the  hopper  4  is  a  pipe  6  connected 
with  a  ohamber  or  vessel  7  into  which  extends  a  pipe  8,  as 
shown,  so  as  to  form  an  ash  separator.  A  screw  cap  9  may 
be  provided  at  the  bottom  of  the  reoeptaole  7  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  removing  aooumulated  ash.  The  pipe  8  leads  to  the 
admission  valve  10  of  an  internal  oombustion  engine  11.  The 
exhaust  from  the  engine  is  controlled  by  an  exhaust  valve  12 
operated  as  heretofore  from  a  oam  shaft  turning  at  one-half 
the  speed  of  the  engine  shaft.  The  exhaust  pipe  13  leads 
to  a  drum  14,  preferably  of  sheet  metal,  whioh  acts  not  only 
as  a  muffler,  but  also  as  a  heater  for  heating  the  room  in 
whioh  the  apparatus  is  looated.  Prom  this  oombined  muffler 
and  heater  a  pipe  15  oonduots  the  produots  of  oombustion  to 
a  flue  or  stack  16.  The  cylinder  of  the  internal  oombus¬ 
tion  engine  11  is  provided  with  the  rusual  water-jacket  17, 
supplied  with  water  from  a  pipe  18.  A  pipe  19  leads  from 
the  bottom  of  the  water-J  aoket  to  a  fiat  tank  20  having  a 
valved  admission  pipe  21,  by  which  water  may  be  supplied 
bo  the  tank  from  time  to  time.  Prom  the  water  tank  20  ia 
?ipe  22  leads  to  the  bottom  of  the  gas  generator.  A  suit¬ 
ably  paoked  door  23  is  provided  to  permit  the  re- 
aoval  of  ash,  as  well  as  to  facilitate'  the  starting  of  oom¬ 
bustion.  The .  Internal  oombustion  engine  11  operates 
an  eleotrlo  generator  24,  whioh  ohargeB  the  storage  batteries 


[ON  BACK  OF  PRECEDING  PAGE] 


|  odt  XX*-  XJtdnJj  dnoTwo  btaisao^  ot  -tjXXs oXSamodo*-  sdaTaqo  noridl; 
•  .b'emuaaoo  need  sari  xbwl! 

-sebtui  ie ttod  ecf ■  ym  tto£ti$$tal  o at  feat  -roino  nl  I 

■  .Sniwa-ib  aoJt"£«*qmooo*  arid  od  fcbdooiifo  aJi  noidnodia  .boodaj 
.butaiaaqa  bbnotoiq  eat  to  wo  tv  oitammisotb  jr  grt  h  worts 
XXoris  «oTi-$eao  a  Hdiw  bobivoTq  si ‘Tods'senss  aag  ortT '  j 

lew!  .e  ,S  Jaiio  to  9ha~.3  *  ,£  3r1.tn.tX  sfoiicfo-r.tt  b  anlrarf  Xj: 
— atclni  eh  Xowi  rfoiriv,'  rigirouhi  P.  -ioob  fttofoaq  13  bris  ,i»  Toqqorfi! 

fiohoonrwo  a  Oijhq  .0  si  -A  -roqqoif  arid  moit  snioraoJ  .f>oor;h>!: 
as  ,8  ocrrq  r.  sbno.txo  rioiriv/  oini  V  Xseaov  to  Totfaisrfo '  a  rfhiw^ 
V*cs:C  --qao  v.'Gios  A  .TndaTaqpa  -  rfaa  na  mot  ot  bb  oa  ( rtV/o rTc, . 
--0!(V  orid-'Tot  V  »Xo.<3d-qeooT  odt  to  mot  tod  arid  ia  babtvoiq  ocfj: 
ertt  ot  safojoX  8  ocriq  ori?  .rfs's  botjdXsjmsJooa  snivomoi . to  aaoqi 
arit  .XX  leriiyres.  aoXdOHctaoo  lame  tat  n*  'ho  ox  svXsv  aolaelab^. 

;  SX  ovXjjv-  iasjistbc.e  a»  qd  boXIo-tdnoo  af  soigne  erti  mit-  tauatixoi 
IXarf-ono  ■)£  a flinrmt  state,  mao  b  moit  oiototoi&d  or.  '.LoJ*Toqoj 
1  86noX-'«X  oqiq  -Jausitjce  .orff  .Jt.erfa  snigho  orij -to  Jbasea  orfj" 

|  xLao,.-ton.&toB  tSotdw  ■  ,£atoa  debris  to  yXtfs-seto'iq  ,AX  nr. xriS  a  odj| 

1  at  moot  odi  gnidaori  tot  imtmd  a  -as  o.aXs  drier  .ifeXItwin  s  -as| 

|  ToX%liBft. borririmoo  stat  JKon^t  ••  .bed.gooX  ai-  eudsTaqqs  orf.t  rioiriwji 
j  ot  -aottoudmoo  to  Btouboiq  wrid  actor/bnoo  3X  oqiq  V  T®‘daeri'*haj 


’-SSJdmo  Xsaio. tat  erfd  to .  Te'bnJtXv.o'-  eW®-  .OX  rids  da  nb  oli£t  -*| 

^X  detfoat-Tadflsr  imfr,  «i£j beblvodSL  at  XX  onijbctb-  -noidi! 
0m/>  u>  o.kfiDW>-  %  >-  Ahv-  ctn^asyJzb.:  :i 

I  -anXrarl  OS  dsust  tg£&&  ot  to fya.fJtfetfivr  oat.  to  mo* to*  orfjjl 
>.  M&xr'k)  Ua.v  dl/rnu  c^yJo  VVMTYTU  I 

'AoiXj0a  atf  >6Sflj  *i9i*vf  itofriw/^tf.  ,XS  dqkq  holEsimbs  bovlis-^ 

slos  sfnatj|'.T0isv/  brO -Biot'S  .  .ersthd  6S  •  etil't-  mit  M&t‘  edi  bctlj 
-tiwa  A  .totBTsnas  asg  ovW  lo  taottod-  e&t  Ot  ehsol  SS  aqi^j 


-BT-  -arit!  Xim-rscf  ■  t>i  b&Mvotq  at  SS'ioob  bejforq  YXtfi| 
—moo  to  aniiifid-.o  .srti  o^d'XXiost  oi  os  XXow  es  .ribs'-  to- -XsVoJ 
ao-iSToqo  ?  XX  eaiSne  noi^fjcrmoo  IsrtToihi  oriX  .noid-arrdj! 
aehroi^scT  oa*TOb&  -  oat ■  aoaisrfo  xioiriw  .AS  Tod-aTenog-  ohi.-tboXe  nj. 


2B.  A  switch  26  Is  interposed  between  the  electric  gene¬ 
rator  and  the  storage  batteries,  for  the  purpose  of  discon¬ 
necting  the  two  when  deBired.  Preferably  the  generator  24 
is  shunt-wound,  so  as  to  thereby  operate  either  as  a  motor 
or  generator  without  the  necessity  of  changing  any  of  its 
connections.  If,  however,  a  series-wound  generator  is 
used,  a  separate  reversing  switch  is  employed  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  reversing  its  field  in  converting  the  same  from  a 
motor  to  a  generator  and  vioe  versa.  The  explosive  mixture 
in  the  internal  oombustion  engine  11  is  ignited  in  any  suit¬ 
able  way,  either  by  a  hot  tube  or  by  an  eleotrio  spark,  the 
latter  being  preferable.  In  the  pipe  a  I  provide  an  air 
opening  27  regulated  by  a  valve  28,  in  order  to  provide  for 
the  proper  adjustment  of  the  explosive  mixture.  TShen  the 
valve  28  has  been  once  adjusted,  it  will  not  ordinarily  re¬ 
quire  any  readjustment  during  the  continued  operation  of  the 
device.  The  air  for  supplying  oxygen  to  the  gas  generator 
enters  through  an  admission  pipe  29  in  the  water  tank  20  so 
as  to  be  saturated  with  water  vapor  before  reaching  the-- 
generator.  Preferably  the  engine  11  is  provided  with  an 
auxiliary  exhaust  30  having  a  oheok  valve  31  therein  and 
a  outoff  valve.  32.  When  the  engine  1b  being  started,  the 
cutoff  valve  32  is  opened,  so  that  the  engine  will  operate 
as  a  simple  air  pump,  exhausting  at  each  tffcroice^^Aa ^oVn^ " 
as  the  correct  oycle  of  operation  oonmenoeB,  the  cutoff 
valve  32  is  oloBed,  so  that  exhaust  from  the  engine  takes 
plaoe  at  every  other  stroke  by  the  operation  of  the  main 
exhaust  valve  12  in  the  usual  way. 

In  operating  an  apparatus  as  described,  and  assuming 
the  storage  battery  28  to  be  partially  charged,  I  first 
start  a  fire  on  the  grate  or  grid  3  of  the  gas  generator 
and  charge  the  same  fully  with  fuel,  preferably  oharooal.  ! 

-4-  ‘ 


The  doors  5  and  23  are  now  olosed.  The  switdh  26  la  now 
oloaed,  so  that  the  eleotric  generator  24  operates  aa  a 
motor,  and  this  oauses  the  engine  11  to  operate  as  a  pump, 
drawing  air  through  the  gas  generator  from  the  admission 
pipe  29,  water  tank  20  and  pipe  22.  TSfhen  the  auxiliary 
exhaust  valve  31  is  employed,  the  engine  when  thus  operating 
as  a  pump  will  exhaust  at  every  stroke.  If,  however,  the 
main  exhaust  12  is  alone  relied  upon,  the  engine  will  ex¬ 
haust  at  every  seoond  stroke.  The  air  thus  supplied  to 
the  gas  generator  is  insufficient  to  support  complete  com¬ 
bustion  therein,  and  consequently  carbon  monoxide  gas  (00) 
will  be  generated.  Thi3  carbon  monoxide  gas  passes  through 
the  pipe  6  into  the  ash  separator  7,  in  which  any  fine  me¬ 
chanically  entrained  solid  partioles  are  removed,  tfrom  the 
ash  separator  the  gas  passes  through  the  pipe  8  into  the  en¬ 
gine  cylinder.  Atmospheric  air  is  added  to  the  gas  at  the 
air  opening  27  so  as  to  result  in  the  production  of  an  ex-  : 
plosive  mixture.  As  soon  as  the  engine  reoeives  such  an 
explosive  mixture,  it  begins  to  operate  independently'  of  the 
eleotric  motor,  assumes  the  load,  and  oauses  the  motor  to 
operate  then  bb  a  generator  supplying  ourrent  to  the  storage 
batteries.  The  exhaust  from  the  internal  oombustion  engine 
passes  through  the  heater  14,  where  it  is  muffled  and  heat 
abstracted  therefrom,  and  thenoe  to  the  stack  16.  The  water 
in  the  Jaoket  17  will  be  heated  by  the  suooessive  explosions 
and  will  olroulate  through  the  water  tank  20.  The  air  en¬ 
tering  the  gas  producer  passes  over  the  surface  of  this  hot 
water  and  abstracts  the  vapor  therefrom.  By  oauslng  the 
incoming  air  to  bp  saturated  with  water  vapor,  the  quantity 
of  gas  generated  will  be  considerably  increased  so  as  to 
consequently  Improve  the  efficiency  of  the  apparatus.  As 
soon  as  the  fuel  has  been  consumed  In  the  generator  or  the 


[ON  BACK  OF  PRECEDING  PAGE] 


i  j 

|  won  oi  8S  dodiwa  ©dT  .bsaoXo  vjo«  o*ia  CS  ba»  3  uiooS  odl'  j 
j  a  as  aoijsrsoao  *>8  loixnsMioa  oitdoaXo  odd  dsr it  oe  ,bsuolo  j 
j  «q?atfq  s' as  eist© qo  od  XX  -aniswo  edd  ssiuwa  nidi  baa  .lodoxa  ! 
noiaaiiriw  arid  awtl  •xois're'noa  a«s  odd  ri&noirtd  tlh  aniws-rJb  j 
V*siXi*ws  add  noxiT  .SS  oqiq  fins  OS  jfasd  .'i&Jsw  tes  »$iq  i| 
gniis-jo  go  sndd  nwit>  on f jiao  sdd  ,boyoXams  a i  X?  stXsv  dansirko  j| 
orti  ,  nevDV/oif  ,1X  .©tfo-ide  yjove  is  dsosxis©  Iliv;  qtauq  s  es  | 
“*6  XXiw  sniyns-  add  ,noqu  bsiX.«>.-i  anoXa  ai  SI  daifaxbe©  xiisat  |i 
!  oi  b*Mwm  SbviJ-  -i y.fi  odT  .edoado  irnoooa  v-vsvs  is  .dousd  S 
)  -cwo  oioXq.iiofi  ivoqqirfi  ' oi  dnoioillx/ani  ai  toisionos  eos  odd  | 
i  (00)  esg  ©ateonom  nod-iso  yldneup oanoo  iris  ,«ie"xadi  noidancf  j! 
iriawo-iri.t  ae*Ba<v  Bag  ©Jdixonom  riocf-iao  aidl  .bodsnsnss  acf  Xliw  !| 
I  -era  anil  'yns'rfoidiv  ni  ,V  •xodxrisqsa  x£a*  add  oini  it  aqiq  add  !i 


!  erW  r«^  .bo-M^iVaia  saXoidisq  biloa  bsnisadns  yXXaoinsdo  !| 
:-ns  -Oiti  oinf>fiv  ©qiq  ©di  rfguondd  asaaaq  asg  sd»  loia-tagoa  xlas  j| 
j  °o  fcobba  ni  *x.ta  oinsdqaoiitdA  .-tobuilyo  ©nig  j: 

ns  lo  rioidonba-iq  odd  ni  dlwecn  od  as  oa  VS  gainaqo  tin  ! 
rts  dona  aayioo^j  orjigno  odd  as  noon  aA^  .evrixfta  oviaolq  || 
odd  lo  vXinabnoqabra  s&n'ogt  of^attial2M^^^^&‘%|iaoXqjc&  | 
od  T-o^om’ ©rich  noat/ub  ft  its  ^tooJt  orfi  a oumsixa-  C70cfiw8 oitchoalo  j;  ' 
©ad-iodcr  add  oi  dne-mro  -aniylqqjjB  ■xoixnsireg  s  es  nsrid  ods'isqo  jj " 
enlgno  noidantfinoo  Ismedni  edd  csoul  -denarise©  axst!  .asineddscf  j 
dasd  bris  bolllwnt  ai  di  anedv;  ,M  toiaorl  edd  rfawotrli  soansq 
j'loisw  ax{T  .8X  dosia  sdi  oi  ©ocorti  bna  .moaloiorii.  boiosiiecfxj 
anoiaolqy.©  eviaaeoenn- exfi  \tf  Jbsisod  a  cl  IX  iw  VX  ia^&jat,'  axti-  ni 
-no  nin  <ndT  .OS  >lrifli  noisw  edi  rfanooxfi  oislnonio  IXivv  Ans 
iori  aitfi  lo  eoslnx/a  arid  navo  aaassg  isonboaq  asg  orfi  gni-xoi 
©rid  gniawso  \;a  .iao-rlo-rodi  noqsv  sdi  aiostiacfa  bits  -xeisv; 
yiiinsi.jp  sxli  ,-coqsv  -jedsw  ditv;  bsinwisa /jcf  oi  lis  gnimooni 
oi  as  oa  beanoitoni  yXctonobianoo  W  XXiw  bsimenag  osg  lo 
eA.  . axjisisqqn  arid  lo  yonaioill©  odd  evonqmi  yXinonpeanoo 
odd  -xo  noioionog  arid  ni  fierauariOo  noscf  osri  Xoul  odd  os  nooa 
-0- 


batteries  have  beoome  fully  charged,  the  switch  36  is  opera¬ 
ted  to  open  the  olrouit,  although  obviously  this  may  be  done 
automatically  by  the  employment  of  a  polraized  relay  which 
operates  when  the  ourrent  from  the  storage  batteries  is  re¬ 
versed,  and  the  electrical  generator  onoe  more  tends  to 
operate  as  a  motor,  when  tho  internal  oombustion  engine  no 
longer  reoeives  an  explosive  mixture.  I  consider  it  pref¬ 
erable  to  make  use  of  oharooal  for  the  generation  of  oarbon 
monoxide  gas,  for  the  reason  that  with  this  material  the  gas 
is  free  of  impurities  and  does  not  require  washing,  as  would 
be  the  case  in  gas  produced  from  coal.  Purthormore,  by  em¬ 
ploying  charcoal  I  obtain  very  little  ash  and  no  clinker,  in 
which  respects  oharooal  is  further  superior  to  ooal. 

Having  now  deBoribed  my  invention,  what  X  claim  as 
new  therein  and  desire  to  secure  by  letters  Patent  is  as 
follows: 

,  l.  The  combination  with  a  gas  generator  for  pro- 
ducing  a  combustible  gas  directly  from  a  solid  fuel,  of  an 
internal  combustion  engine  connected  to  said  generator,  and 
an  ash  separator  between  tho  engine  and  generator,  substan¬ 
tially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 

2.  The  combination  with  a  gas  generator  for  pro¬ 
ducing  oarbon  monoxide  gas  from  oharooal,  of  an  internal 
oombustion  engine  oonneoted  to  Bald  generator,  substantial¬ 
ly  as  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 

,  .3.  The  combination  with  a  gas  generator  f or  pro- 

CU\A  ciaaJ  Urwvucti,^*  cCtwuK MUvW 

ducing  a  combustible  gas  directly  from  a  solid  fuel^  of  an 

internal  oombustion  engine  oonneoted  to  said  generator,  and 
an  electric  motor  connected  to  said  engine  for  starting  the 
same,  substantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 

4.  The  combination  with  a  gas  generator  for  pro- 


-6- 


.Lmvvfl.  tnuucUvn 

duoing  a  oohbustlble  gas  directly  from  a  solid  fuel,  of  an 

internal  combustion  engine  oonneoted  to  said  generator,  an 
eleotric  motor  oonneoted  to  said  engine  for  starting  the 
same,  and  storage  batteries  for  furnishing  current  to  the 
eleotrio  motor,  substantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set 
forth. 


6.  The  combination  with  a  gas  generator  for  pro¬ 
ducing  a  combustible  gas  djireotly  from  solid  fuelj^mjase^forJ 


supplying  to  Baid  generatoj^tmoaphsEio^  air. 


V 


Int  in 


quantity  to  support  oomplete  combustion,  and  means  for  satu¬ 
rating  the  air  with  water  vapor,  of  an  internal  combustion 
engine  oonneoted  to  said  generator,  substantially  as  and  for| 
the  purposes  sat  forth. 


6. 


The  combination  with  a  gas  generator  for  pro-^_ 


duoing  a  oombustible  gas  direotly  from  solid  fuelf 

supplying  to  said  genelrato^'i^  M 

A  A 

quantity  to  support  oomplete  oombustion,  and  means  for  satu¬ 
rating  the  air  with  water  vapor,  of  an  internal  combustion 
engine  connected  to  said  generator,  and  an  ash  separator  be¬ 
tween  the  engine  and  generator,  substantially  as  and  for  the 
purposes  set  forth, 


7.  The  combination  with  a  gas  generator  for  pro¬ 
ducing  a  combustible  gas  dirsotly  from  solid  fuel,  and  a 
water  tank  oonneoted  with  the  atmosphere  and  with  said  gene¬ 
rator  respectively,  of  a  water- Jacketed  internal  combustion 
engine  oonneoted  with  the  generator,  and  connections  between 
the  water  jacket  of  said  engine  and  said  water  tank,  sub¬ 
stantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 

S.  The  combination  with  a  gas  generator  for  pro¬ 
ducing  a  combustible  gas  direotly  from  solid  fuel,  and  a 
water  tank  oonneoted  with  the  atmosphere  and  with  said  gene¬ 
rator  respectively,  of  a  water- j aoketed  internal  oombustion 


-7- 


engine  connected  with  the  generator,  connections  between  thJ 
water  jacket  of  said  engine  and  aaid  water  tank,  and  means 
for  maintaining  a  substantially  constant  water  level  in  saii 
tank,  substantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 

.  t:  ,  9*  The  combination  with  a  gas  generator  for  pro¬ 
duo  lngaT  o,owbuB^ible"'gaa  diroo^'ly  from  aoli^^ue^of  an  in- 

A 

ternal  oombustlon  engine  oonneoted  to  said  generator,  and  a 
heater  oonneoted  to  the  exhaust  of  said  engine,  substantial¬ 
ly  as  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 

10.  The  combination  with  a  gas  generator  for  pro¬ 
ducing  a  combustible  gas  direotly  from  solid  fuel,  of  an  in¬ 
ternal  combustion  engine  oonneoted  to  said  generator,  and 
moans  for  mixing  atmospheric^ air  with  the  gaa  between  the 
generator  and^engine,  substantially  as  and  for  the  purposes 
set  forth. 

11.  The  combination  with  a  gas  generator  for  pro¬ 
ducing  a  combustible  gas  direotly  from  solid  fuel,  of  an  in¬ 
ternal  combustion  engine  oonneoted  to  said  generator,  means 
forjaixing  atmospheric  air  with  the  gas  between  the  genera¬ 
tor  and  engine,  and  a  valvo  for  regulating  the  added  air, 
substantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 

12.  In  apparatus  for  charging  storage  batteries, 
the  combination  with  a  storage  battery,  of  a  combined  eleo- 
trio  motor  and  generator  connected  therewith,  an  internal 
combustion  engine  for  operating  said  aleotrio  generator,  and 
a  gas  generator  for  producing  a  oombustible  gas  direotly 
from  solid  fuel  and  for  supplying  the  Borne  to  the  engine, 
substantially  aa  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 

13.  In  apparatus  for  charging  storage  batteries, 
the  combination  with  a  storage  battery,  of  a  combined  shunt- 
wound  electric  motor  and  generator  oonneoted  therewith,  an 
internal  oombustion  engine  for  operating  said  eleotrio  gene- 

-8- 


rator,  and  a  gas  generator  for  producing  a  combustible  gas 
directly  from  Bolid  fuel  and  for  supplying  the  same  to  the 
engine,  substantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 

14.  In  apparatus  for  oharging  storage  batteries, 
the  combination  with  a  Btorage  battery,  of  a  oombined  eleo- 
trio  motor  and  generator  connected  therewith,  a  switoh  for 
connecting  and  disconnecting  the  electrio  motor  and  genera¬ 
tor  to  and  from  the  storage  battery,  an  internal  oombustion 
engine  for  operating  said  electric  generator,  and  a  gaB 
generator  for  producing  a  combustible  gas  direotly  from 
solid  fuel  and  for  supplying  the  same  to  the  engine,  Bub- 
I  stantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 


State  Of  New  jersey,  l  . 

Counts  Of  Essex,  J 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON  .  the  above-named 

PETITIONER,  BEING  DULY  SWORN,  DEPOSES  AND  SAYS  THAT  HE  IS  A  Citizen 

OF  THE  Ohited  States  and  a  resident  of  Xlewellyw  Park,  Orange, 
County  of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey} 

THAT  HE  VERILY  BELIEVES  HIMSELF  TO  BE  THE  ORIGINAL,  FIRST  AND  SOLE  INVENTOR 

of  the  IMPROVEMENT  IN  STORAGE  BATTERY  OHAHOINO  APPARATUS 


DESCRIBED  AND  CLAIMED  IN  THE  ANNEXED  SPECIFICATION;  THAT  HE  DOES  NOT 
KNOW  AND  DOES  NOT  BELIEVE  THAT  THE  SAME  WAS  EVER  KNOWN  OR  USED  BY  OTHERS 
N  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA  BEFORE  HIS  INVENTION  OR  DISCOVERY  THEREOF; 
OR  PATENTED  OR  DESCRIBED  IN  ANY  PRINTED  PUBLICATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 
|  OF  AMERICA  OR  ANY  FOREIGN  COUNTRY  BEFORE  HIS  INVENTION  OR  DISCOVERY  THEREOF, 

OR  MORE  THAN  TWO  YEARS  PRIOR  TO  THIS  APPLICATION;  OR  IN  PUBLIC  USE  OR  ON 
;  SALE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  FOR  MORE  THAN  TWO  YEARS  PRIOR  TO  THIS  APPLICATION, 

I  AND  THAT  NO  APPLICATION  FOR  PATENT  UPON  SAID  INVENTION  HAS  BEEN  FILED  BY 

|  &  HIM  OR  HIS  LEGAL  REPRESENTATIVES  OR  AS8IGN8  IN  ANY  FOREIGN  COUNTRY  MORE 


2—161. 


SERIES  OF  1900. 


•9  I 

a  I  ha, vo  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  petition,  specification,  oath,  and  | 

■g  drawing  of  your  alleged  Improvement  in _  J 


)7Jr1  a  a/  L 

S  with  Fifteen  Dollars  as  the  first  fee  payable  thereon. 

The  papers  are  duly  filed,  and  your  application  for  a  patent  will  he  taken  E 


“  up  for  examination  in  its  order. 


«  Nc8X&r~  M. 


Thomas  A..  Edison, 
c/o  Dyer  ft  Dyer, 

#31  Nansoi  at., 

H.  Y.  City. 

Please  find  below  a  communication  from 


Department  of  the  Interior, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  d,  c„ 


c  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 


Storage  pd;  eery  Charging  Apparatus,  filed  March  13,  1903,  serial 


This  case  has  been  examined. 

Claima  1  and  2  are  rejected  on;  - 

t«39#46«,  Txirola,  Hoy.  20,  1894  ' -y' 

Bxplo.  JSng.  ii  cycle).  0. 

Claims  3,  4,  9,  18,  13,  14  are  rejected  a3  being  ug^egatlons. 
Claims  3,  4,  12,  13,  AAi  are  rejected  on  Loroie,  In  ylew  of 
la  Poche,  #667,662,  gepr  11,  1900,  (^xplo.  Eng.  Speed  T>ag.): 

01  aims  6,  6,  9,  10,  and  11  are  also  rejectedron  lords;  oee 
also  tlermrn  patent  to  I'AVeniryjfndua  trial,  #108,165,  JUly  29,  1898, 
Brltlfh  patent  to  Otto,  #17,210,  Affig.  24,  1899,  (Sxplo,  Bn« . .  8 1  sir  ting 
Do  vie  ee) ;  Pemlngton,  #670,44l^0ct ,  27,  1896,  (Kxplo  .  Bng.  4  Cycle). 
M.K.O. 


L’sco  No, Paper  No, 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPPICE. 


Thomas  A.  Edison 

Improvement  in  Storage  Battery 
Charging  Apparatus 

Piled  March.  13,  1903. 

Serial  No.  147,567 


I  HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS 
Sir:  — 

Replying  to  Office  action  of  April  11, 
1903,  please  amend  the  above  entitled  case  as  follows: 

-Claim  1,  line  2  after  "fuel"  insert  -  "and 
having  an  unobstructed  connection  with  the  atmosphere." 

,  Claim  3,  line  2  after  "fuel"  insert  -  "and  hav¬ 
ing  an  unobstructed  connection  with  the  atmosphere." 

Claim  4,  line.  2  after  "fuel"  insert  -  "and  hav¬ 
ing  an  unobstructed  connection  with  the  atmosphere." 

Claim  5,  line  2  cancel  "means"  and  insert  in 
place  thereof  -  "a  connection".  -  Claim  5,  line  3,  can¬ 
cel  "atmospherio  air",  and  insert  in  place  thereof  "by 
suction  air  under  atmospheric  pressure  and". 

/  Claim  6,  line  2  canoel  "means"  and  insert  in 
place  thereof  "a  connection".  Claim  6,  line  3  cancel 
"atmospheric  air"  and  insert  in  place  thereof  "by  suction 
air  under  atmospherio  pressure  and". 

J  Claim  9,  line  2  after  "fuel"  insert  -"and  hav¬ 
ing  an  unobstructed  connection  with  the  atmosphere." 


j  ARGUMENT. 

Claims  1,  3,  4,  5,  6,  and  9  have  been  amended  to 
dearly  distinguish  from  the  references.  The  difficulties 
which  are  met  with  in  the  attempt  to  produoe  gas  from  solid 
fuel  suitable  for  the  operation  of  an  internal  combustion 
engine,  are  well  known.  The  use  of  coal  for  the  production 
of  the  gas  neoessitites  such  elaborate  devices  for  purify¬ 
ing  the  gaB  as  to  make  the  apparatus  utterly  impracticable 
for  the  purposes  for  which  applicant's  device  is  adapted, 
lorois  sayB  that  he  finds  that  by  using  air  and  steam  under 
considerable  pressure,  and  producing  the  gas  under  pressure 
and  at  a  high  temperature  from  coal,  the  gas  iB  of  suoh 
purity  that  no  washing  or  scrubbing  of  the  same  is  necessary 

Mr.  Edison,  however,  solves  the  problem  in  an  en¬ 
tirely  different  manner,  and  by  the  UBe  of  much  simpler 
apparatus.  He  does  not  attempt  to  use  coal,  but  instead 
US6B  charcoal,  and  produces  carbon  monoxide  gas  which,  when 
mixed  with  air,  he  finds  to  be  very  well  adapted,  for  the 
operation  of  an  internal  oombustion  engine.  He  dispenses 
with  the  air  compressor,  compressed  air  reservoir,  and  pre¬ 
heating  devioes  of  loroiB' ,  and  draws  the  air  from  the  at¬ 
mosphere  into  the  gas  producer  by  suction  of  the  engine. 

It  will  be  evident  that  applicant's  apparatus  is 
very  much  less  expensive  than  that  of  loroiB,  and  does 
not  require  the  services  of  an  eapert  attendant  to  operate 
same. 

It  may  be  stated  that  Mr.  Edison's  invention  is 
being  operated  very  suooessfully  at  his  laboratory  in  West 
Orange.  The  apja  ratuB  operates  with  great  efficiency,  and 
requires  very  little  attention. 

Claim  2  is  distinguished  from  the  references  in  that 
"a  gas  generator  for  producing  carbon,  monoxide  jias  from 
oharooal"  is  set  forth.  ThiB  feature;  appears  to  be  entirely 


novel,  and  it  1b  thought  the  claim  should  ha  allowed. 

Claims  10  and  11  distinguish  from  the  referenoa 
in  that  they  speoify  "means  for  nesting  atmospheric  air 
with  the  gas  between  the  generator  and  engine".  It  is 
thought  that  in  the  reference  theftmixing  would  not  he  so 
complete  or  thorough  as  in  the  structure  claimed.  Eurther- 
more  in  the  reference  the  air  is  not  under  atmospheric 
pressure.  It  is  oompresed  air,  and  requires  an  air  oom- 
preBBor  and  reservoir. 

Reconsideration  of  olaims  12,  1$  and  14  is  request¬ 
ed  for  the  reason  that  these  olaims  cover  combinations  whicjh 
are  not  found  in  the  references.  It  is  thought  that  the 
disclosure  of  some  of  the  elements  of  the  combination  in 
one  reference  and  other  elements  in  another  reference  shouli 
not  be  held  to  anticipate  these  claims  in  view  of  the  co¬ 
operation  of  the  various  elements  of  the  combination  to 
produoe  the  unitary  result  which  it  is  the  objeot  of  the 
apparatus  to  accomplish,  and  which  iB  accompli  shed  by  Mr. 
Edison,  by  the  use  of  Buch  sample  apparatus. 

An  allowance  of  the  case  is  respectfully  solioited. 

Thomas  A.  Edison 

His  Attorney. 

Orange,  N.J. 

April  6th,  1904. 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  0PP1CE. 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 


Piled  March  13,  1903 
Serial  No.  147,587 


Room  No.  218 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OE  PATENTS'. 

Sir:-- 

Please  amend  the  above  entitled  case  as 

follows :  , 

'  Pase  4,  after  the  sentence  ending  in  line 
24  insert  -  "This  is  advantageous , in  that  it  increases  the 
quantity  of  air  drawn  into  the  gas  generator  and  therefore 
starts  the  same  into  operation  more  quickly.11. 

\^,V  Insert  the  following  claims: 

|  ;Y,  r  15.  The  combination  with  a  gas  generator  for 

5  producing  a  oombustible  gas  directly  from  solid  fuel,  of 
an  internal  combustion  engine  connected  therewith  and  hav¬ 
ing  a  piston  cylinder ,  an  inlet  port  for  the  explosive 
[mixture,  a  main  exhaust ,  means  for  opening  the  main,  exhatist 

,  ,  h-otfA- 

at  every  second  stroke  of  the  piston  and  an  auxiliary,  a 
mally  closed  exhaust,  capable  of  being  opened  to  (allow 
the  cylinder  to  exhaust  at  every  stroke  of  the  pist^bn,  subs 
stantially  as  set  forth, 

16.  The  method  of  generating  mechanical  power 
which  consists  in  pr oducing^c arb on  monoxide  by  burning 


63iarooal  in  the  presence  of  a  limited  air  supply,  mixing 
air  with  said  carbon  monoxide  to  produce  an  explosive  mix¬ 
ture,  knd.  operating  an  internal  combustion  engine  by  means 
of  said  explosive  mixture,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

17.  \The  method  of  generating  mechanical  power 
which  oonsists  in  drawing  air  under  atmospheric  pressure 
through  incandescent  charcoal  by  means  of  suction  created 
by  the  piston  of  an  internal  ccmbustion  engine,  thereby 
producing  carbon  monoxide ,  mixing  air  with  said  carbon  mon-.. 
oxide  to  produce  an  explosive  mixture,  and  operating  said 
engine  by  means  of  said  explosive  n^ixture,  substantially 

as  set  forth.  \ 

\ 

REM  A  R  K  S.  . .  . 


Claim  15  covers  a  combination  which  is  be¬ 
lieved  to  bo  entirely  novel  and  therefore  patentable,  in 
view  of  its  usefulness  as  set  forth  in  the  application. 

Claims  16  and  17  are  believed  to  be  proper¬ 
ly  inserted  in  this  application  in  view  of  the  recent  de¬ 
cision  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  Steinmetz 
vs.  Allen,  109  O.Cf.  549,  ou^d  iL 

CL-  'V’/V-U"" cjl  (l  .  fjl  , 

U  Respectfully  submitted, 

Thomas  A.  Edison, 

By 

Orange,  H.  J.  His  Attorney. 

April  7,  1904. 


V: 


4  *'Tho,C.mmi»<ton.r  of  Palon 

tf/~“ 

;  United  States  Patent  Office, 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 


-/Thomas  A.  Edison, 
c/o  Prank  L.  Dyer, 

Edison  laboratory, 
Orange,  E.  J. 

Please  find  betow  a  com 


WASHINGTON,  O.  C. 

|  , 


Juno  9,  1904. 


,^L. 


(J.  S,  PATENT  OFFICE, 

JUN  9  J904 


n  from,  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 


StoaragO  Battery  Charging  Apparatus,  filed  narch  13,  1903,  serial 
#1*17,537.  .  , 

■  b\  tA  , 


This  case,  as  amended  April  7,  1904,  has  been  considered. 
Claims  16  and  17  presented  in  the  amendment  of  April  3,  190£, 

•  h8*e  '  b00n  entQrod  are  foimd  to  contain  subject  matter  cov- 
•,  ering  a  separate  invention  from  .that  originally  filed  in  this  case. 

-  Action  on  the  merits  of  all  the  claims  is  deferred  pending  the  ctui- 
# collation  of  these  claims,  in  accordance  with  the  decision  of  ,the 
•  Commissioner  of  Patents  in  ex  parte  Selle,  llo  O.O.,  1720. 

Attention  is  further  called  to  British  patent  to  Siemens,  #2,50 
'f  June  9»  1081»  (Bxplo.  Eng.,  Multiple  Cylinder) 5  British  patent  to 
;  Parker  ot.al.,  #23,476,  Jfor.  20,  1901. 

Attention  is  also  called  to  the  July  1902  number  of  the  Gas 
Engine,  published  by  the  Gas  Engine  Publishing  0o.,  Cincinnati,  0. 

•  -  Attention  is  further  called  . to; - 

-/  #261, 698,  Fogarty,  July  25,  1882; 

,  IGas  processes,  Water  cont.):  ■  . 
j  #254, 204-,  Fogarty,  Peb.  20,  1882;  .: 

#265,792,  Fogarty,  oct.  10,  1882;  ■ 

iTf.  leest  Ste“  «— «• 

(Gas  generators,  Wood  oil):  : 

#244,173,  Belt  et.al.,  July  12,  1381; 

(Gas  Generators,  Retort,  Wood,  Oil);  ;  • 

Si™  H5iLisr2a“ait?s,5“i  i  f 4  w?- * 

U.H.C. 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPPICE. 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 


Improvement  in  Storage 
Battery  Charging  Apparatus  r 

Piled  March  13,  1903,  : 

Serial  Ho.  147,587. 


ROOM  NO.  218. 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS: 
S  I  Ei- 


Replying  to  office  action  of  June  9th, 

1904,  a  reconsideration  of  the  requirement  for  the  cancella¬ 
tion  of  claims  16  and  17,  and  an  action  upon  the  merits 
of  the  claims  are  requested. 

The  examiner  states  that  claims  16  and  17  are 
found  to  contain  subject  matter  covering  a  separate  in¬ 
vention  from  that  originally  filed  in  this  case.  The  in¬ 
vention  covered  by  these  claims  is  a  separate  invention 
from  that  originally  filed  only  in  the  sense  that  every 
method  or  process  is  a  separate  invention  from  the  apparatus 
used  in  carrying  it  out.  Under  the  recent  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Steinmetz  case  cited  in  our  amend¬ 
ment  of  April  8,  1904,  it  was  held  in  very  positive  language 
that  an  inventor  has  a  right  to  Insert  both  method  and 
apparatus  claims  in  a  single  implication.  I  quote  from 
the  opinion  as  follows: 


"A  ruling  having  such  effect  must  be  considered 
as  final  and  apealnble.  TOiether,  however,  to  the 
Examiners-in-chief  or  to  the  Commissioner,  and  from 
to  tlle  90,Ir,fc!  we  may  postpone  answering 
until  we  have  considered  We  right  of  an  lnventor^o 
join  prooess  and  apparatus  claims  in  one  apnllogSTon. 


»3ut  as  we  have  already  said,  to  establish  a 
rule  applicable  to  all  cases  is  not  to  exercise  dis¬ 
cretion.  Such  a  rule  ignores  the  differences  which 
invole  discretion,  and  which  can  alone  justify  its 
exercise  and  we  are  of  opinion  therefore  that  Rule  41 
is  an  invalid  regulation. 

'  "Having  settled  the  right  of  appellant,  we  may 
•  now  return  to  a  consideration  of  his  remedy!! 


"The  unity  of  the  inventions  claimed  by  peti- 
tioner  in  the  case  at  bar  we  may  assume.  It  is  not 
denlecf  by  respondent.  Petitioner" 'had,  therefore,  THe 
right  to  join  them  in  one  application. 11 

The  claims  in  question  are  thought  to  be  such 
process  claims  as  come  within  the  above  ruling  and  for  this 
reason  to  be  properly  joined  in  this  application. 

In  case  the  examiner  adheres  to  his  former  require-- 
ment,  it  is  requested  that  an  action  on  the  merits  be  given 
as  to  all  of  the  apparatus  claims.  It  is  believed  that 
the  decision  in  ex  parte  Sells  cited  by  the  examiner  does 
not  require  that  all  action  upon  the  merits  of  a  case  be 
suspended,  pending  the  determination  of  the  question  of 
division;  and  since  applicant  is  entitled  to  make  apparatus 
claims  in  this  case,  whichever  way  the  question  of  divls- 
sion  is  settled,  it  is  believed  that  action  on  the  apparatus 
claims  should  not  be  suspended. 

Respectfully  submitted 
THOMAS  A.  EDISON, 

By 

His  Attorney. 

Orange,  N.J. 

June  Q*?  1904. 


2—260. 


department  of  the  Interior, 

United  States]  Patent  Office, 

.  Washington,  D.  c.,  Sept.  21,  1904. 


Xhomas  A.  Edison,  I  it— i 

.  i  111  iWIiJm 

O/o  Prank  1.  Dyer,  gi  ’ 

Edson  laboratory,  Orange, Hew  Jersey.  j  ! 

Apparatus.  j 

! 

1  _  Commissioner  of  Patents. 

1 

i’he  requirement  for  division  made  in  the  last  official  let¬ 
ter  ie  hereby  repeated.  Ho  action  on  the  merits  of  the  apparatus 
claimed  can  be  Given  until  thks  requirement  is  complied  with. 
Applicant’s  attention  is  called  to  ex  parte  Snyder  110  0.0.  2236. 

It  is  noted  that  none .of  the  mechanism  of  the  apparatus 
claimed  carry  out  the  particular  methods  sought  to  be  claimed. 
Applicant’s  attention  is  further  called  to  Bates  573,937,  Deo. 

29,  1896,  Wftnand,  618,549,  Jan.  31,  1899,  Vrestinghouee, 680,827 
Aug.  20,  1901,  (Oas  Producers;.) 

•j 


Examiner,  DiSr. 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE. 


Thomas  A.  Edison,  ) 

) 

IMPROVEMENT  IN  STORAGE  BATTERY  ) 

CHARGING  APPARATUS,  )  ROOM  NO.  218. 

Filed  March  13,  1903,  ) 

) 

Serial  Ho.  147,587.  ) 

HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS, 

SIR:- 

Replying  to  office  action  of  September 
21,  1904,  please  amend  the  above  entitled  case  by  cancel¬ 
ing  claims  16  and  17,  in  accordance  with  the  Examiner’s 
requirement.  An  action  of  the  merits  6s  respectfully  so¬ 
licited  in  view  of  the  amendment  and  argument  filed  April 
7th,  1904. 

THOMAS  A.  EB1S0N, 

By 

His  Attorney. 

Orange,  New  Jersey. 

October  1904. 


....jaOtoom _ 383 . 


department  or  the  Interior, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Thomas  A.  Bdisotl,  Washington,  D.  C.,  Dec.  19,  19 0^* 

c/o  Frarflc  L.  Dyer, 

Hdaon  Laboratory, 

Orange,  New  Jersey. 


1 1: ; I  OFFICE, 

DEC  IS  1904 
liyXJLlXjIBP. 


Please.  flnd  below\a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 

Storage  nattery  Charging  Apparatus,  riled  March  13,  1903,  Serial 
#147,587. 


?r  of  Patent 


This  case,  as  amended  Oct.  13,  1904,  has  been  considered. 
Claims  3,  4,  9,  13,  13,  and  14  are  rejected  as  aggregations. 
Claim  1  is  rejected  onj- 


€  ,cl01' 

Claim  2  is  rejected  on  Parker.  In  regard  to  this  claim  it  may  be 
stated  that  in  view  of  the  common  use  of  charcoal  for  gas  producing 

purposes,  that  it  would  not  involve  invention  to  use  this  substance 
connection 

In  a -gas  producer  in  *gK*£±ax  with  an  explosion  engine,  such  as 
for- example,-  V/inand .  Attention  is  called  to  the  art  cited  in  the 
letter  of  June  9,  1904,  as  showing  the  common  practice  to  use  char¬ 
coal. in, the  manner  stated.  \Vy 

Claims  3  and  4  are  rejeoted  on  Y/inand,  in  view  of  La  Roche . 

There  is  no  proper  combination  between  the  specific  form  of  gas  ^ 
producing  means  and  the  explosion  engine  on  the  one  hand,  or  an 
explosion  engine  and  electric-'v  generator  on  the  other.  '• 

-  .Claims  6  and  6  are  rejected  on  Yfinand,  and  parker. 

-Claims  7,  and  6  are  rejeoted  on  Winund. 

•  .  ..In  the-.next  to  the  last  line  of  claim  8,  the  means  for  maintain¬ 

ing  a  constant  water  level  is  not  illustrated. 

•Claim  9  is  rejected  on  Lorois  or;- 
#680,827,  Westinghouse,  Aug.  20,  1901. 


#147,587- 


Claims  10  and  11  are  rejected  on  Lorois.  Air  coming  through 
the  pipe  16  meets  the  gas  .'.‘Homing  through  the  pipe  Q'  In  the  head 
Of  the  cylinder  In  thiB  patent,  and  between  the  combustion  chamber  and 
the -^generator.  Attention  is  also  called  to;  - 

f4o3,294,  Sohmidt  et.al.,  May  14,  1889; 

Explo.  Eng.,  Oen.  Combustion).  •-? 

Claims  12,  13,  14  ai*e  rejected  on  Lorois,  in  view  of  La  Hoche. 
Claim  15  is  rojeoted  on  British  patent  to  Boult,  #15,018,  of 
1901,  (sxplo.  Eng.,  Igniters,  Sparkers). 

.  So  far  as  understood,  the  last  4  lines  of  this  claim  are  inac¬ 
curate.  Apparently  in  line  6,  the  v/ord  "stroke"  should  be  "revolu¬ 
tion",  and  the  word  "piston",  should  bo  "shaft";  similar  changes 
should  be  made  in  line  8. 

H.RYc. 


If  V 
2—300. 


United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  ’  ‘ 

Thomas  A.  Edison,  Dec.  28,  19o4- 

c/o  Prank  L.  Dyer, 

Bdson  Laboratory, 

orange,  Hew  jersey. 

Please  find,  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 


u.  8,  PATEriT  OFFICE, 

•'DEC  28  1004 
M.A.ILBD- 


Storage  Battery  Charging  Apparatus, 
#147,587. 


filed  Huron  15,  1903,  Serial 


$J,  QJtL~ 


Attention  is  oalled  to  the  following  patents  which  further  show 
the  use  of  charcoal  in  the  relation  applicant  has  disclosed. 

Taylor,  #640,048,  Dec.  26,  1899; 

Taylor,  #638,485,  Dec.  5,  1899; 

(3as  producers) . 

H.K.C. 


}}y^u^S  ^L^tS 

f— 


Folio  No.  id 


Serial  No.  »?.  ■  I, 

Address. 


Filed  .«//£*  v  4,J.9?y.  . .  Examiner's  Room  No.  ,.c2sA3 


Assignee .  .  .  . 

Ass’g’t  Exec . Recorded  ;  Liber  Page 

Patent  No.  7  7  i>' .% if. A Issued •(  -  /  f  u  «-/ 

ACTIONS. 

16... 

2.....^mW^y  17 ... 

4 . Z .  <#.  19... 

>:  5  20... 

8  /.9..  ?.Sf2  3 . 

9  . 

.  25... 

1  ll  _ , . . ."^lrl4^T^*r^777r77^ri^T — .£>t4f^LTrrfr!7777 .  26... 

J2 . . ^s^rr:. . . .  .^4rO.  '-r  27... 

<13  J  28... 

^4..':V, . '. . '. . . . .  29... 

15 . '•■•••••. . * . ’•• .  30.  v. 

f-  '  FRANK  L.  DYER; 

‘  ,.  ^  Counsel, 

,  “  l  ORANGE,  NEW  JERSEY. 


Applicant. 

•  •  &  ■  &&  i  v  •  • 


.X 


jVr<  , 


^  i  .\0-Wvv.-  WA<- 


^r^fcf^rf  V-^jp  J\\-/  ^Ji.A^..c 


/\'-*-'v"  ^a^Xaa-YV'" 


. '  CiCc-'  ^^>-€Vv^ fcdY"  J\A-^  ^^-.(IIA^- 

Q^r^  C*\/w  5^-CJVvS^-X.  CX^v-'/(>_>  .Ayf  __  _J 

•;  .  ..  .■T‘t  ,.:z; 

.  ^^-ONA-  C^  '"\a>  ..  CVvs^.  .  .  "X^L- . •  •"••••^ 

— . - ■XAf$\fJZjk~s  --Ra _ ....! 

,cto"  ,hyvr^T<>... . .  /Lvv^: . tWC^' ;  lw _ .^V:  ..  . 


&  THE 


FREID  GRAVITY 

DRY  PROCESS 

—  SEPARATORS  — 

MANUFACTURED  BY 

THE  freed  engineering  company, 

ORANGE,  N.  J. 

For  Separating  *  and  *  Concentrating 

SOLID  MATERIALS 


COPLESTON  &  SAXELBY 

SELLING  AGENTS 

39  CORTLANDT  STREET 

NEW  YORK  CITY 


is  for  tho  purpose  of  preventing  any  spill  at  the  roller  feed. 

The  deflecting  action  is  caused  by  the  balanced  non-cavitating 
screw  propeller  “U,”  which  creates  a  partial  vacuum  in  tho  ac¬ 
tion  chamber  "V,”  and  the  valve  "W"  controls  the  pressure  at 


The 


openings  “H"  at  the  ball! 
settle  in  tho  chamber  “K.” 

The  driving  mechanism  is  arranged  to  allow  minute  change  of 
speed  of  the  propeller,  and  is  driven  by  direct  coupled  motor,  by 
means  of  flexible  flange  couplings  at  “Z,"  or  belt  from  motor  or 
line  shaft  to  loose  and  tight  pulley  as  shown. 

By  adjusting  the  counter  driver  “AA,”  the  speed  of  the  pro¬ 


se  particles,  giving  a  nroduct  of 


;nt  “X,”  at  tho  top  of  the  settling 
atmospheric  volume  to  exceed  tho 
rs.  This  causes  the  light  particles  to 


ground  to  pass  1-2  inch 

separating  the  fine  from  th _ _ _  , _ 

nine  separate  grades,  from  200  mesh  to  1-2'  iriclTmosti.'  This  is 
accomplished  by  one  pass  through  the  Separator. 

Tho  Separator  can  be  regulated  to  treat  any  property  as  light 
as  cork  or  as  heavy  as  iron,  by  adjusting  the  counter  drive, 
which  gives  the  propeller  a  speed  ratio  of  13  to  1. 

For  concentration,  the  Separator  is  adjusted  at  the  baffle 
plates  so  as  to  increase  or  decrease  the  atmospheric  action  on 
the  material  treated  and  in  this  way  will  concentrate  properties 
from  0.5  to  22.00  specific  gravity,  recovering,  or  saving,  95  per 
cent,  of  the  values  contained. 

Any  Information  desired  ri 
separation  or  concentration,  w 


COPLESTON  &  SAXELBY 

SELLING  AGENTS 

For  The  United  States  of  America 

39  CORTLANDT  ST.,  NEW  YORK  CITY 


WHY?  # 

USE  JIGS, 

RIFFLES 

•*.'  AND  SCREENS 


To  Separate  or  Concentrate  Solid  Materials,  if  You 
Can  Do 


MORE.  .  . 

**  WORK  .  .  + 

CHEAPER 


With  the  Freid  Dry  Process  Separator 


^VjL  CL/0"V-vv'0-Vu 

^ . 

3 


i: 


>■ 


Oj~-  Cl.  rtjJLaJiSfc 

Cvw.  5A^Q_Xxf'^-vv-v_^ 

CL.  I  V'Ca^-T,  'Cvv'C’^-C 


Avv/WiyUvv\y(/uvt-- 

i'Y  (VVH'V^'V- vvvv.  e>T^-^a  CaAJU^A.  , 

(X-  ACAJUa^  /|AajI>^-A^vvX.  c^j/V^A^Uy-c 

Avn-^  C^A/^v.'Ia^x^Cviw  Q.  OU(KU2.  /\/WjL 
.  UtCm.'-Ll  Ow’-uC  ^\_  £1.  /(aa^(m.  | 

- A-  (X-  flxe,iryv£v  C7vvm^A  /jj'vwuz^o  (S.  CyUlXK  ' 

^A'  ^,‘4vuX  £j .  C  uuaj  fjyt\Apl/l\.C\, 

(i— £W'>w'  CVl  C\,  pi/LOsi.  C/^M.  %A. 

^eL-puCf.  /3(UXtiA 

,  ^  WV\_  t-VV  l/Kfi.  Ua^(a-£.  OL.  /^V^a^UMO.'- 

. . Ct  [jy-U^iL  O^sjM'Vu-N-j  /^vv  /^4vL 

£|  J  ^  Ut-\) 

)~LSL.&J~l,  A  |/|/\^_  I^AV-Ov  /$  (SxVX-^iA. . (7C*0 

C\.(3viAa^o  /6v^A<-  j 

/&  [hLtpJic  (biY  Aj^jLd^yi  Mapzc 

//O'wXv;  /b-\  CvtXut^,(  (Wv  6v_  PW-uX-^s. 

J  /,  V«A-Cii<xX  __  ^  ,  ,, 

X^VV'/VV7C’V%^  ...  fQtA^Xx^lu  ^OU(/T2-^. . 

,fc.  '  ctuX(^_ . 3^/  •£?FvJL  ; 

— —  C/c-uv^)  (Vc  cx-^yt"  ajcLlc  .  j 

K~c  0^—t^.J^s  • 


. <2~ 


Filed  a2?  /$£?&. . 


Examiner’s  Room  No .... 


2  /..iQ./...9.<?y\l... 

,  3 . (Jh.^.iscfas<L . . Z^,..^../^^l  8... 


8. . . .\ . L . ut.:  23..  .'S/4'. . M-.a*V\<vy\tM. . . -?uo  '  I 

$9 . »•• . I . .  ....  24..rwvfd^5»C . ...  % 

10. . . . I . yL\^ . u .  2 >v: 

ijf/. . ’kXt.  ' ^  ,  ,‘\  ' . .  "  j 

12  ..... - •• . ....'. . ...\j:X.-:.i, .  21  £**&£-.  | 

13.....;. . :..!....:, . .  fater* — '.  A  -vL*  v 

14 . •’ . ; . 29 ..ud. v .  ,v'-  ■■  ..] 


FRANK  L.  DYER, 


Petition. 


Go  tbe  Commissioner  of  iPatents : 

lour  petitioner!  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  residing  and  having  his  post  office  address  at  Llewellyn 
Park,  Orange,  Essex  County,  New  Jersey, 

Praps  tbat  letters  patent  map  be  granteb  to  bim  for  tbe  IMPROVEMENTS  IN  PROCESS 
OP  DRY  SEPARATION.  (Case  No.  1103). 


set  fortb  in  tbe  antieieb  speciflcation ;  anb  be  berebp  appoints  jfranft  X.  JDper  (IRegts* 
tration  INo.  560),  of  Ebison  Xaboratorp,  ©range,  Hfew  Sersep,  bis  attornep,  witb  full 
power  of  substitution  anb  revocation,  to  prosecute  tbis  application,  to  malie  altera= 
tions  anb  ainenbments  therein,  to  receive  tbe  patent,  anb  to  transact  all  business  in 
tbe  patent  office  connecteb  tberewftb. 


...Thomas....  A....  ..Edison, 


SPECIFICATION, 


TO  V/HOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN: 

Be  it  known  that  I,  Thomas  A.  Edison  of  Llewellyn 
Park,  Orange,  Essex  County,  New  Jersey,  have  invented 
certain  improvements  in  Process  of  Pry  Separation,  of  whioh 
the  following  is  a  specification: 

My  invention  relutes  to  the  separation  of  gold  from 
gravel  or  other  gangue  containing  the  same,  hy  the  "dry 
prooess" , wherein  a  stream  of  falling  granular  material  is 
subjected  to  the  effect  of  a  blast  of  air  by  which/the  tra¬ 
jectory  of" the  falling  particles  is  changed  and  the  lighter 
particleB  (gangue)  oarried  over  a  dividing  board  so  as  to  be 
separated  from  the  heavier  particles  (gold,  black-sand,  eto). 
The  objeot  of  the  invention  is  to  provide  a  simple  and 
cheap  process  and  apparatus  by  which  a  very  perfect  separa¬ 
tion  can  be  secured,  whereby  placer  deposits  may  be  prof ital • 
ly  forked  whioh  are  now  regarded  as  unworkable  on  account  oi 
the  low  percentages  of  gold  contained  in  the  same,  and 
lack  of  water. 

In  order  to  secure  the  best  results  in  practical 
operation,  it  is  necessary,  or  at  least  highly  important 
that  the  following  conditions  should  be  observed: 

(1)  The  material  supplied  to  the  separating  appar¬ 
atus  should  be  as  uniform  in  sise  as  practicable,  the  best 
results  being  secured  when  the  largest  parti ole a  are  not 
more  than  twice  as  large  as  the  smallest  particles.  The 
possible  variation  in  the  size  of  material  depends  to  a  cer¬ 
tain  extent  on  the  oharaoter  of  the  gold  being  treated. 

When  the  gold  is  in  nugget  form,  there  may  be  a  wider  dif¬ 
ference  in  the  size  of  the  material ,  than  when  the.  gold  is 
in  the  form  of  scales  or  wires,  A  variation  of  2  to  1  may 


be  considered  an  average,  and  may  be  increased  or  diminished 
as  required  by  the  special  forms  in  which  the  metal  ooours, 

(2)  The  blast  of  uir  should  be  continuous  and  uni¬ 
form  and  of  equal  velocity  in  all  portions ,  because  other¬ 
wise  the  falling  particles  would  not  be  uniformly  acted  on. 
Heretofore,  one  of  the  principal  difficulties  encountered 
in  the  actual  operation  of  dry  separators  has  been  the  fact 
that  the  blast  is  retarded  at  the  sides  by  friction  with 
the  walls,  producing  irregularities  in  separation. 

(3)  The  material  should  be  presented  to  the  aotion 
of  the  blast  in  the  form  of  a  very  thin  stream,  only  a  few 
particles  thiok,  and  of  the  full  width  of  the  blast,  in 
order  that  each  particle  may  be  acted  upon  by  the  blast  and 
not  be  shielded  by  other  particles. 

(4)  The  material  should  be  brought  to  rest  immed¬ 
iately  before  entering  the  blast  in  order  that  all  the  part¬ 
icles  will  have  the  same  uniform  and  very  low  velocity  when 
they  enter  the  blast.  In  this  way,  the  blast  has  a  much 
better  opportunity  of  acting  on  the  falling  partioleB,  than 
if  the  velocity  of  the  particles  was  higher. 

(5)  Finally,  the  entire  apparatus  should  be  so  orgar- 
ized  and  the  process  carried  out  as  to  be  as  automatic  as 
possible,  requiring  only  a  minimum  handling  of  the  material, 
in  order  that  large  quantities  of  material  may  be  treated  at 
low  cost. 

Inaan  application  for  letters  Patent,  filed  May  4, 
1903,  Serial  No,  156553,  I  desoribe  it  certain  improvements  in 
dry  separators  wherein  a  very  perfect  separation  of  properly 
sized  material  may  be  secured,  said  apparatus  comprising  a 
separating  ohamber  having  a  dividing  board  in  its  bottom 
and  supplied  with  a  blast  whioh  is  made  perfectly  uniform 
by  being  passed  suooessively  through  a  ooarse  and  a  fine 
.screen,  and  material  being  supplied  to; the  blast  in  the  form 
of  t.  and  in  •  -2- 


of  a  wide  and  thin  stream,  Toy  a  roller  feed,  which  first  de¬ 
posits  the  material  on  a  checking  shelf  off  of  which  it  is 
forced  Toy  the  succeeding  accretions,  so  that  the  material 
will  pass  through  the  blast  at  a  uniform  and  very  low  veloc-| 
ity.  In  the  carrying  out  of  my  improved  process,  I  make  use 
of  a  series  of  separators  of  this  type  and  to  which  the 
material  is  fed  in  a  novel  manner,  whereby  the  operation 
may  be  performed  at  low  cost  per  unit  of  concentrate. 

In  the  drawing  1  show  a  diagrammatic  view  of  the 
apparatus,  illustrating  the  employment  of  three  separators 
and  also  a  magnetic  separator  for  removing  magnetic  portions] 
of  the  concentrate,  such  as  blaok-aarkO- 

Referrlng  to 'this  drawing,  I  illustrate  a  set  of 
three  screens  1,  2  and  3,  over  which  the  material  is  succese]- 
ivj&y  passed,  mounted  in  c}.  suitable  tower  4,  and^progressivejly 
increasing  mesh.  Above  each  screen  is  a  checking  shelf  5 
for  bringing  the  material  to  reBt  before  passing  over  each 
screen,  so  that  the  velocity  of  the  particles  is  reduced  and] 
the  screening  effect  improved. 


A  hopper  6,  is  located  above  the  screens  and  is  pro¬ 
vided  with  a  roller  feed  7,  for  feeding  a  wide,  thin  stream 
of  material  to  the  topmost  screen.  Chutes  8,  9  and  10  lead 
to  the  several  separators  three  being  shown.  These  separa¬ 
tors  are  of  the  type  discribea  in  said  application,  and  each 
oonsists  of  a  separating  ohamber  11,  supplied  with  a  blast 
from  a  fan  12,  a  course  screen  13,  a  fine  screen  14,  a 
hopper  15  having  a  roller  feed  16,  a  checking  shelf  17,  1::,,.. 
located  behind  the  feed  opening,  and  on  whioh  the  material 
accumulates  as  a  pile,  a  slatted  bottom  18,  a  dividing  board 
19,  a  concentrate  chute  20,  and  a  tailings  chut©  21.  The 
tailings  are  lead  off  through  the  ohutes  21  to  a  conveyor  22, 
and  thence  to  a  suitable  dump. 

The  concentrates  are  lead  off  by  the  ohutes  20,  to  a 


-3- 


bonvoyor  23,  and  thence  to  t.he  hopper  24,  he  low  which  is  a 
'Magnetic  separator of  any  desired  type,  a  simple  bar 
magriat^baing  shown,  whin’-  ohanges  the  trajectory  ofiS  the 
falling  particles,  causing  the  magnetic  portion,  such  as 
black-sand  to  fall  into  a  raeeptaole  26,  anu  permitting  the 
final  rich  concentrate  to  fall  into  the  receptacle  27. 

I  carrying  our  my  improved  process,  1  proceed  as 


f  ollowa  :~ 


The  material  is  removed  from  ite  plaoe  of  de' 
posit,  preferably  by  means  of  a  steam  shovel  and  immediately 
screened  in  coarse  soreeriB  or  "grizzlies"  so  as  to  eliminat^ 
all  particles  of  larger  size  than  any  of  the  particles  of 
gold  to  be  saved.  A  large  amount  of  material  is  thus  re¬ 
jected  at  the  outset,  so  as  to  correspondingly  reduoe  the 
quality  of  the  material  requiring  further  treatment.  The 
finner  particles  passing  through  the  "grizzlies"  are  now 
conveyed  to  the  mill,  in  dump  cars  or  otherwise,  and  deposiiji 
in  the  hopper. 

If  necessary,  the  material  may  be  first  dried  in  any 
suitable  form  of  drier.  By  means  of  the  screens  1,  2  and  ; 
this  material  will,  be  sorted  into  a  corresponding  number  of 
sizes,  and  the  separate  sizes  of  material  are  conveyed  to  tlj( 
Beveral  separators  as  explained.  It  will,  of  course  be 
understood  that  as  many  screens  should  be  used  as  will  be 
found  neoessary  to  subdivide  the  material  into  enough  sizes 
as  to  secure  in  each  size  a  permissible  variation  in  the 
particles;  for  instance,  no  greater  variation  than  that  in 
which  the  largest  particles  in  any  size  are  more  than  twice 
aB  large  as  the  smallest  partioles  in  the  same  size. 

The  speeds  of  ,  the  fans  of  the  several  separators  are 
first  regulated  su|j3ts:to  give  the  desired  deflection,  oarry-| 
ing  the  gangue  over  the.  dividing  boards.  Obviously  the 
speed  of  the  fan  will  vary  according  to  the  size  of  the 
-4- 


material*  being  loss  in  the  separator  wlach  works  the  relat¬ 
ively  fine  products  of  the  screen  1,  than  that  which  operate s 
on  the  coarser  products  of  the  screen  15,  When  the  capacity 
of  the  blast  of  each  separator  is  thus  adjusted,  a  coarse 
screen  13,  for  each  is  selected  and  placed  in  position  which 
wd-il  secure  the  desired  equalizati on  of  pressure.  Since 
each  separator  always  works  on  particles  ranging  within 
definite  limits  of  size,  no  change  in  the  adjustment  of  itB 
fan  or  character  of  its  coarse  screen  will  be  required,  after 
the  prosper  speed  of  the  fan  and  character  of  the  screen 
have  been  once  secured.  The  material  falling  very;  slowly 
through  the  uniform  blast  of  each  separator,  and  in  a  thin, 
wide  stream,  will  lie  deflected  by  the  blast  and  the  gangue 
carried  over  the  deflecting  board  19,  passing  off  through 
the  chutes  21  to  the  conveyor  22,  and  thence  to  the  refuse 
pile.  The  concentrate,  including  the  gold,  black-sand 
(magnetite),  etc.,  will  not  be  carried  over  the  dividing 
boards,  but  will  pasB  off  through  the  chutes  20,  to  the  con¬ 
veyor  23,  and  thence  to  the  hopper  24.  From,  this  hopper, 
the  rough  concentrate  is  subjected  to  the  action  of  the 
magnetic  separator  25,  and  any  magnetic  particles  will  be 
withdrawn,  the  final  concentrate  falling  into  the  receptacle 
27,  from  which  it  is  removed  for  the  reoovery  of  the  gold  by 
amalgamation,  smelting  or  any  other  suitable  process. 

Having  now  described  my  invention,  what  1  claim  as 
new  therein,  and  desire  to  seoure  by  letters  Patent,  is  as 
follows: 

(1)  In  a  dry  separation  process,  the  improvement 
which  consists  in  subjecting  granular  or  pulverulent  mater¬ 
ial  in  the  form  of  a  wide,  thin  stream,  to  the  action  of  a 
^^§ular  and_unifom_blaat  pf  air  and  in  separately  recover¬ 
ing  the  tailings  and  concentrate  so  secured,  substantially 
as  set  forth. 


[ON  BACK  OF  PRECEDING  PAGE] 


(2)  In  a  d^y  separation  process,  the  improvement 
which  consists  in  causing;  granular  or  pulverulent  material 


to  fall  from  a  state  of  3 


i  and  in  a  wide,  thin  streai 


ivering  the  tailings  an 


-ed,  substantially 


blowing  a  blast  of  air 


iualize_±ha/blant and  in  subjecting  to  the  effi 
blast ,  granular  or  pulverulent  material 
i  of  a  wide,  thin  stream,  substantially  as  set 


which  consists  in  blowing  a  blast  of  air  through "a  screen, 

r—  CHj  — l 

i  ant^  in  subjecting  to  the  effecl 
of  the  ^ual4aed| blast,  granular  or  pulverulent  material 
in  the  form  of  a  thin  wide  stream  and  immediately  aftere 


(5)  In  a  dry  separation  process,  the  improvement 
which  consists  in  blowing  a  blast  of  air  through  a  plurality 

of  screens  of  progressively  decreasing  mesh  so  as  to . equal- 

to 

ize  the  blast,  and  in  subjecting,, the  effect  of  the  equalized 
blast,  granular  or  pulverulent  material  in  the  form  of  a 
wide,  thin  stream,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

(6)  In  a  dry  separation  process,  the  improvement 

which  consists  in  subjecting  granular  or  pulverulent  mater¬ 
ial  in  the' form  of. :a  wide,  thin  stream  to  the  action  of  a 
regular  and  unif ormr  blast . qf.,.,air,  and  In  subjecting  the 


covered  concentrate  to 


lagnetic  separation  to  remove 


magnetic  particles,'  substantially  as  set  forth. 

(7)  In  a  dry  separation  process,  the  improvement 
which  consists  in  dividing  the  the  granular  or  pulverulent 
material  into  a  plurality  of  relatively  uniform  sizes,  in 


.6- 


subjecting  the  separately  eiaed  particles  in  the  form  of 
wide,  tliin  stroamn  to  the  action  of  regular  and  uniform 
blasts  of  air  of  different  velocities  dependent  on  the  size 
of  material,  and  ift  collecting  the  material  concentrated- 
toy  the  several  blasts,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

(8)  In  a  dry  separation  process,  the  improvement 
rhich  consists  in  dividing  the  granular  or  pulverulent 
material  into  a  plurality  of  ralatively  uniform  sizes,  in 
subjecting  the  separately  sized  particles  in  the  form  of 
wide,  thin  streams  to  the  action  of  regular  and  uniform 
blasts  of  air  of  different  velocities  dependent  on  the  size 
of  material,  in  collecting  the  material  concentrated  by  the 
several  blasts,  and  in  subjecting  the  combined  concentrate 
to  magnetic  separation  to  remove  magnetic  particles,  sub¬ 
stantially  as  set  forth. 


-7- 


Ebis  specification  signeb  anb  wftnesseb  tbis  25t,h  bag  of  May  1903 


. Thomas  A.  Edison 

Mitncss : 


Prank  L.  Dyer 


2 . R.QMrt.....Ba.f.n., 


Oath. 


State  of 
Count?  of 


New  Jernev 
Esnex 


TKClviAS  A,  EDISON,  tbe  above-nanieb 
petitioner,  being  bulg  sworn,  beposes  anb  sags  tbat  be  is  a  citizen 
of tbe  United  States,  and  a  resident  of  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange, 
In  the  county  of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey; 


tbat  be  verilg  believes  bfmself  to  be  tbe  ordinal,  first  anb  sole  inventor  of  tbe 
IMPROVEMENTS  IN  PROCESS  OP  DRY  SEPARATION. 


bescribeb  anb  clainteb  in  tbe  annegeb  specification ;  tbat  be  boes  not  Imow  anb  boes 
not  believe  tbat  tbe  same  was  ever  Imown  or  useb  bg  others  in  tbe  Elniteb  States  of 
Hmerica  before  bis  invention  or  biscoverg  thereof ;  or  patenteb  or  bescribeb  in  attg 
prlnteb  publication  in  tbe  Elniteb  States  of  Hmerica  or  ang  foreign  countrg  before  bis 
invention  or  biscoverg  thereof,  or  more  than  two  gears  prior  to  tbis  application ;  or 
in  public  use  or  on  sale  in  tbe  Elniteb  States  for  more  than  two  gears  prior  to  tbis 
application,  anb  tbat  no  application  for  patent  upon  saib  invention  bas  been  flleb  bg 
bfm  or  bis  legal  representatives  or  assigns  in  ang  foreign  countrg  more  than  seven 
months  prfor  to  tbe  filing  of  tbis  application. 


Sworn  to  anb  subscribeb  before  me  tbis 


. ..Ih.Qmas....A......Edi.s.on . . 

25  th  bag  of  May  190  3. 

. 

motarg  public. 


H.B.O. 


United  States  Patent  Office,  ' 

■  Washington,  D.  c.,  Jwie  89 ,  3.905. 


Thoiaas  A,  Hdiaoh, 

Cara  Prank  7.’.'  pyer 
’ •'  ■  '  tfrtOJgb V'W.J.j' 


,  filed  May  89 '  1905 f  for'fcrooeaa 


II.  a  PATEin  QFFulf ' 


'iKAtLEE): 


of ;  -  Dry  .Ifieparat  ion . 


•£  J!,  ^L.. 


It  is  hot  permissible  to  refer  to  another  pending  applioation 
for  a  wore  oonplete  dieoloeure  of  the  case  at.  bar)  aae  ax  parte 


-  In  line  8|  page  4,  the  nuMoral8S  aeame  to  ha  Inoorroot . 

Xt  the.olains  (except  possibly  8)  -were  for  a  true  preoesa, 

tvrtiioh  they  are  not  and  for  that,  reason  are  unpatentable,  in  view  of 
the  decision  in  dunninghaa,  Xh  re."  108  GiG.  *  884)  they  would  be  an- 
tlolpated  in  View  of  ref erenoee  eited  beloir. 

^.mair,  iTeoite'e  nothing  nore  thAh  the  f  imotien.vef?*^ 
ahom^in  the  following  patents! 55,851,  Beadh,  -Satfiu  iCiMW&l ■ 
588,481,  Jones,  July  5,  1094*  drain  Separators,  Gravity,  A;  504,840, 
Patterson,  Aug.  89,  1895,  Ore  and  Coal,  Separators,  Dry. 

^  i  ^  .  Olato  a  ie  reJeoted  on  the  sane  referenoee. 

4.. Jjfaln  5  la  fully  anff  ooHPlWteiy  hnt'ib^ 

D 1890,  Separators,  Dry,  whioh  illustrates  still  aore  strong¬ 
ly'"  th«t  this  ei5bW^V%J#f  a  iiwohihe  function,  »a  Wide  thin  strewn" 
being  ia  neroly: relative  limitation. 

/  Xnartimbifihs  the  naferiai  ib  ito  nors  In  a  state  of  rest  in  ap¬ 
plicant*  s  base  than  in  the  usual  dry  Separator  it  seena  necesaary 
to  objeot  to  thb  use  of  that  torn  in  the  blaina.  All  applicant  has 
done  has  been  to  use  «  retarding  Plate  (see  Beach f  cited)  on  whioh 
the  Material  piles  up  and  over  whioh  it  ^radtiaHy  eli^ea'  With  a  eon- 

-  ”  Case  No.  Paper  No.  ✓  •  I  ' 


Sdtsoft  -  9  #169, 5W7  T^T". 

siderably  reduoad  velocity,  sinoe  the  material  will  pile  up  «n  |jK«f 
plats  17  until  its  “angle  of  repose*  is  rsaohsd  when  it  will  ddh- 
tinually  slide  down  without  ever  reaching  a  “Biate  of  rest*. 

In  view  of  ths  fast  that  no  state  of  rept  is  rsaehbd  texoept. 
in  the  hopper  before  the  .notarial  is  |ed  to  the  Mast  at,  all)  the 
use  of  the  tern  "insuidiataly  after  isavine  a  condition  of  rest", 
in  claim  4,  is  objected  to  rb  inoorreot  and  not  in  aocerffi&me; with 
the  facts.  She  olalm  is  rejeoted  m^Oraig,  in  view  of  the  feed 
' '  shown  in  Beach,  cited. 

Olain  5  Is  rejeoted  on  578,811,  Place,  Dec.  1,  1596,  Ore  and 
Coal,  Separators,  Dry,  which  shows  two  devices  having  gradually  do-, 
creasing  openings  in  the  line  of  travel  of  the  blast  for  the  purposed 
of  producing  a  blast  of  uniform  yelooity  throughout  ite  cross  section. 
The  first,  is  the  part  16  which  is  provided  with  holes  17  and  lareor 
air  spaces  around  it,  while  the  second  is  the  screen  11. 

Claim  6  is  rejeoted  as  being  completely  anticipated  by  the 
mere  opecdtion  of  such  machines  as  are  shown  by  Patterson,,  cited, 
or  614,674,  Patterson,  Hov.  88,  1898,  Separators,  Dry.  It  Ji  the 
rule  instead  of  the  exoeptioh  to  else  the  material  before  it, is 
fed  to  eubh  raaohinbs  as  are  shown  above,  aomplete  machines  for  sis^-^ 
lng.and  separating,  being  shown  in  the  two  following  patentei 
ti:  841,,  Bush,  July  19,  1898,  Grain  Separators,  Gravity,  *,  and  Sftl^aafl, 
Marshall.  May  4,  1897,  Amalgamators,  Mercury,  li  ln  the  first 
maohlne  it  will  be  notioed  that  only  the  middle  erade  of  material 
falls  through  the  air  blast  while  in  the  second  machine  the  finest 
grads  alone  is  treated  by  the  separator.  A  series  of  blasts  treat¬ 
ing  the  material,  as  the  sifting  takes  plaee,  are  ehoen  in  Jones, 

’  cited  above,  the  regulating  varies  P  providing  the  means  to  offset 
the  slsing  sines  their  movement  one  eay  or  the  other  will  determine 


. . 


•  V . 


the  girade  of  material  blown. over  them,  and  the  troughs  If  provide . 
means  for  separately. redovering  tho  sevoral  concentrates*;  In  view 
of  the  foregoing,  olaira  7  do  rojootod. 

Claim  B  books  t,o  be  tho  only  claim  of  tho  aorloc  whloh  might 
bs'tsTjily  olasaad  as  a  "projjsfgS^  nut.  an  It  Involves  nothing  more 
than  the  addition  to  1533, Guplln,  Jan.  fl,  1B»«,  Separators,  J)ry, 
of  the  old  step  o *  raagnetlo  separation  shown  in  similar  machines 
in  the  two  Patterson  patents,  olted,  the  olalm  is  rejected. 

*j«She  application  seems  to  present  nothing  patentable  whatever. 


Hxandner, 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPPICE. 


Thomas  A.  Edison 

Improvements  in  Process 
of  Dry  Separation. 

Piled  May  29th,  1903. 
Serial  No.  159,307 


Hoorn  No.  243. 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS. 
Sir:- 


Qh 


In  response  to  office  action  of  June  29th, 1903 
please  amend  the  above  entitled  case  as  follows: 

JPage  4,  line  2  -  cancel  "23". 

4Claim  3,  line  3,  cancel  "  as  to  equalize  the"  and 
insert  in  place  thereof  -  "  plaoed  with  respect  to  the 
blast  passage  as  to  produce  a  regular  and  Aniform". 

Claim  3,  line  4,  cancel  "equalized"  and  insert  in 
place  thereof  "regular  and  uniform". 

^Claim  4,  line  3,  cancel  "as  to  equalize  the"  and 

insert  in  the  place  thereof"  plaoed  with  respect  to  the 
a 

blast  passage  as  to  produce  „ regular  and  unifonjt". 

4  Claim  4,  line  4,  cancel  "equalized"  and  insert  in 
place  thereof  "regular  and  uniform". 


REMARKS. 

In  regard,  to  the  expression  "falling  from  a  state 
of  rest"  as  applied  to  the  material  which  is  acted  iipon  by 
the  blast  of  air,  applicant  believes  that  this  describes 
oorreotly  the  conditions  which  exist.  The  material  whioh 
is  delivered  by  the  roller  16  rfalls  upon  the  shelf  17  and 
comes  to  rest.  The  naterial  gradually  works  its  way  off 
the  edge  of  this  'shelf  and rfalls  into  the  air. blast.  It  is 


■believed  that  all  the  particles  of  material  actually  come 
to  rest  for  &  short  period  of  time,  but  even  if  some  of 
the  partioles  do  not,  they  movo  so  slowly  that  when  they 
leave  the  checking  shelf  the  effect  is  the  same  as  if  they 
had  been  at  rest,  and  therefore,  they  be  said  even  in  this 
case,  to  be  practically  at  rest. 

Applicant's  claims  are  believed  to  oover  patentable 
processes .i-uid  While  it  is  true  that  tha  processes  olaimed 
may  be  and  preferably  are  performed  by  the  use  P  a  machine,  K 
this  does  not  bring  them  within  the  class  of  unpatentable 
mechanical  methods.  In  all  of  such  methods  whioh  have  been 
held  to  be  unpatentable,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  the  methods 
consisted  in  operating  upon  material  by  meohanioal  means  to 
change  its  form. 

In  applicant's  invention  a  mass  of  material  is  acted 
upon  by  a  blast  of  air  which  may  be  produced  by  a  meohanioal 
blower,  but  the  prooess  depends  for  its  operativeness  upon 
the  inherent  qualities  of  the  particles  of  materials  which 
are  treated,  those  of  greater:;  specific  gravity  being 
separated  from  those  of  a  Isiss  speolfio  gravity.  THis 
apparatus  doss  not  tend  to  alter  the  particles  of  the  matter 
treated,  but  applies  various  physical  forces  suoh  as  the 
air  blast  and  the  force  of  gravity  tp'  material,  oonsi string 
of  partioles  having  different  physical  properties,  so  that 
said  foroes  acting  together  are  able  to  cause  the  inter¬ 
mingled  particles  to  separate  from  each  other  and  pursue’ 
different  paths,  The  steps  necessary  to  utilize  these  for¬ 
ces  in  a  useful  manner  are,  believed  to  constitute  a  true 
prooesB  and  if  novel  the  same  should  be  patentable. 

It  is  believed  that  none  of  the  olaims  are  antici¬ 
pated  by  the  references .  In  all  prior  devioes  so  far  aB 
applicant  is  afware,  the  separation  which  constitutes  the 
object  of  the  devios ,  has  been  imper^Ct, Considerable  per- 


cent age  of  the  gold  pas Bing  off  with  the  gangue.  This  is 
due  to  the  fhot  that  the  blaBt  of  air  in  these  devices  has 
not  been  regular  and  uniform.  It  is  impose! hie  to  produoe 
a  regular  and  uniform  blast  by  means  of  a py  of  the  struc¬ 
tures  shown  in  the  references.  The  blast  of  air  will  vary 
in  strength  at  different  periods  of  time  and  the  blast  will 
be  irregular  in  different  portions  of  the  space  in  whioh 
the  material  is  treated. 

In  the  applicant's  device  it  will  be  noted  that  the 
screens  13  and  14  extend  entirely  across  the  blast  passage, 
and  the’  same  is  free  from  all  enlargements  or  obstructions 
which  would  tend  to  interrupt  the  blast  and  produoe  £r regu¬ 
larities  in  the  same,  and  it  is  a  fact  that  in  applicant’s 
device  the  blast  is  made  absolutely  uniform  and  regular 
so  that  perfect  results  are  obtained.  The  references  will 
be  considered  in  turn,  and  it  will  be  shown  that  there  is 
no  anticipation  in  any  of  them  of  the  inventions  claimed 
JjWein. 

In  patent  No.  33,231  to  Beach,  a  grain  separator  is 
shown.  The  only  feature  whirr ein  this  device  appears  to 
bear  any  resemblance  to  that  of  applicant,  is  in  the  use 
of  a  shelf  for  checking  the  motion  of  the  material  to  be 
treated,  and  in  the  use  of  an  air  blast.  It  will  be  no¬ 
ticed  that  the  ifsjln  opens  dlreotly  into  the  separating  cham¬ 
ber  by  means  of  a  large  opening.  The  direction  of  the  blast 
will  change  as  .the  positions  of  the  blades  of  the  fan  change 
It  is  clear  that  the  intensity  of  the  blast  will  also 
change  with  the', positions  of  the  arms  of  the  fan  and  the 
shape  of  the  blast  chamber  is  suoh  that  the  foroe  of  the 
blast  will  va'ry  it  different  points.  These  three  features 
will  all  tend  to .make  the  blast  exceedingly  irregular  and 
not  uniform.  ,  .  j 


|  In  patent  Ho.  343,901  to  Craig,  the  blast  leaves 

the  blast  pipe  or  passage  D  and  enters  a  large  rectangular 
ohamber  which  is  provided  with  an  opening  covered  by  a 
screen  The  patentee  says  the  funotlon  of  this  soreen 
is  to  "break  up  and  distribute  the  blast  as  it  enters  the 
separator".  This  structure  will  produce  a  blast  which 
is  irregular  on  account  of  the  shape  of  the  chamber  C,  add 
the  location  of  the  blast  pipe  D.  The  lower  portion  of 
the  screen  S’  is  directly  in  front  of  the  blast  pipe,  while 
the  upper  portion  of  the  screen  is  considerable  above  the 
said  pipe..  It  is  evident  that  the  blast  which  issues 

from  the  lower  part  of  the  screen  will  be  stronger  than 
^  ,  shape  of  the 

tnat  issuing  from  the  upper  part,,  furthermore.,.  theAcham- 

bor  C  will  probably  cause  eddy  currents  of  air  to  be  set 
up  within  the  same  ,.  which  will  prevent  uniformity  in  the 
air  blast.. 

In  patent  Ho.  479,241  to  Bush,,  the  action  of  the 
blast  would  be  practically  the  same  as  in  the  Beaoh  patent 
previously  oonsidered., 

In  patent  Hob,.  504,240  to  Patterson,  522,421  to 
tTonos,.  532,266  to  Cuplin,  581,866  to  Marshall,  and  614iy874'; 
to  Patterson,  no  attempt  is  made  to  regulate  the  blast 
except  in  some  cases  by  . the  use  of  valves  to  regulate  the 
openings  of  the  blast  pipe  and  no  screens  are  used,  and 
for  this  reason  it  would  be  impossible  to  obtain  a  regular 
and  uniform  blast.  Ao  stated  in  applicant's  specification 
a  blast  of  this  character  is  retarded  at  the  sides  by 
friotion  with  the  walls,  by  which  irregularities  are  pro¬ 
duced.  v 

In  patent? Ho,  573,311  to  Plaoe,  there  1b  no  attempt 
made  to  produce,  a  regular  and  uniform  blast.  The  funnel 
15  is  used  for  spreading  the  air  and  giving  the  blast  a 
greater  orossrB^otion.  The  slats  11  are  for  deflecting 


-4* 


the  blast.  They  cause  it  to  be  deflected  upward  and  down¬ 
ward  in  a  cries-croBs  manner,  the  patentee's  object  ap¬ 
parently  being  to  permeate  the  material  treated  more  tho¬ 
roughly  than  would  be  cb  ne  by  a  regular  and  uniform  blast. 
Thus  the  Patentee  says  that  the  air  current  will  be  "by  0 
said  slats  projected  in  reverse  directions^as  to  thorough¬ 
ly  commingle  with  the  particles  of  clay  or  other  na  terial 
gravitating  through  the  screen- frame". 

For  these  reasons  an  allowance  of  the  claims  is 
respectfully  solicited. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Thomas  A.  Rdison. 

By 

His  Attorney, 

Orange,  Hew  tTeris§y 
April  AS”  1904. 


— Y- 


United  States  Latent  Office, 


.  %(t',  -■  ^  WHi-TON.-D.c,.  Aftril 

Shoites.Ai  ■sdAodU,  ;  :  '  -  r  '••  -v\  'V'' . '  •  b;  ' 

'  Oar^;'Pr«nk;:r.. -'Dy«rv;- ■■• .  ,4-?-  .•••.■•  f  ~  ■  ■ '  *■'*- '''  u  :  APR' 301904 ' . 


Case  amended  April  Id ,1904. 


TAs  showing  still  further  In  MM.ii1.mn ,  to  the  record,  that  the 
alleged  pr  <^oe  as  la  for  nothing  more  than  the  function  of  a  maohino 
see. patent  'ft, *97',  Straub,  July  17,  16 49  ,  drain  Separatora^OreYity, 

A.  -It  will  too  noticed  that  this  patent,  shows  ovary  essential. of  ' 
applicant! a  claims  1  to  4  and  7,  the  screening  of  the  material,  of 
tha'iiat.tor  claim,  being  a  usual  sipp  prior  to  separat  ion, shewn- 
In  this  record.  •  •■,>;••.: '  ■ 

Claim  S  merely  adda  to  this  Machine,  not.  nraoeea.  more.- screens 
to  equalise  the  blast  at  all  points. 

•  Claim  6  is  rejected  as  for  a  alnple  function  of  the  machine  pre¬ 
viously  oited  againBt  it. 

Claim  fl  is  for  nothing  more  than  a  magnet le  Reparation  of  the 
combined  oonoentrates  following  the  slslng  and  separation^ shown  b^ 
Ouplin  of  record^  or  API, 033,  Sterling,  June  P,  1900,  Separators, 
BryHx.-,  It ..  is  old-  as  shown  by  014, P74,  natt  eroon ,  of  record,,  -to  fol¬ 
low  an  air  separation  with  a  magnetic  .aeparation  and  ainpf  ii:  is 
old  as, -.shown  by  704,010,  Rdiaon,  July  8,  1908,  Kagnetifli  'Sefoarei.ors , 
to  submit  the  oombined  product,  of  a  .  aeparation  to  a  magnetic  sepa¬ 


ration,  it  ie  not  apparent  that  invention  is  required  to  oomhine  the 
oonoentrates  from  either  (tuplin's  or  Starling's  machines,  and-  treat 


JMiflon  -  3  #159, »G7 

than  to  a  WBfinfl  tio  aeparotion. 

.  The  olatms  ar«  nllJraJ  noted. 

Should  applicant.  daaAre  t,o  appatil,  ft  final  rciect.ion  rill.hft 
waited.  ' 


Jbcundnar, 

Pirlaion  XT?. 


at*. \>ro.  /yd  vf 


Folio  No.  54 

Applicant. 


Serial  No.  JM,  /7f 


. . (^wi,  .  . 


:  . 


Filed-  /P'f  // Examiner's  Room  No 


. *i . ’..  . 


i7.:. 

\  18:... 
:?  J  4  .  ./ .£ 19.... 

>•■  5  . .*».,  20.... 

'•  ••6..«^.^....^..f!^....!^^..<'..4;>..».^..^.  21.... 

.V  7...i^..^.....^....^..^V  22.... 

'  'V . . .  /C.  23.... 

.  •  •■  9...... . . v*Z . .  24.... 

■1Q^ . . .(\..^\l,.„^.,.v . ;  25.... 


FRANK  L.  DYER, 

Counsel, 

•  ORANGE,  NEW  JERSEY 


} 0hr<^ 

(P&yJt  to 


t^-f,  . 


/vx-w«^  * j~V!L» 

— "J 

£Jj-* 


■• 'cp-o*-<w» 


‘i*“ 

'i£»-'1^v^«'rfS 


cJc^)  .tr^t, 

*|Jl  |2^<r|*<;-Ci^  J^!  r-~~'1'K  <SX*-*~~  *•’' 

%t~~~ ^rr1"’' 

^MT2^  W“ 


\ 


'-T  f 


•ii , 


Folio  No. 


. 55 

Applicant. 

.  J.  &, 


Serial  No.  /<£  <£/, ^  ^  & 


. . . . 

Jt'ij&hf  .  Examiner’s  Room  No . '^''7 *f . 


Ass’g’t  Exec.. 


. Recorded. 


Page 


Patent  No... 


ACTIONS. 

h  '....,v^£.t  l  yj-.c  #  tc^/u^yc.  j  6 . 

.  2  j  y 

3  18 

4 . 9 . 

■ .  5  <z/f*  . 

;  kfy^.Ayu^-^^t. . .^ki^.(?.,jfa62\ . 

’^.7 22 . 

■  ■^...^  . 


FRANK  L.  DYER, 
Counsel, 


Petition. 


Go  tbe  Commissioner  of  patents : 

ISour  petitioner ,  THOMAS  A.  EDISON,  a  oitizen  of  the  United 
States,  residing  and  having  his  post-office  address  at  Llewellyn 
Pari,  Orange,  Essex  County,  Nov/  Jersey,  . 

prags  tbat  letters  patent  mag  be  granteb  to  blm  for  tbe  IMPROVED  PROCESS 
OP  DUPLICATING  TUBULAR  SOUND  RECORDS, 


set  fortb  in  tbe  amteieb  specification ;  anb  be  berebg  appoints  tfranft  %.  ®ger  (IRegis* 
tratfon  mo.  560),  of  Edison  Xaboratorg,  ©range,  mew  Jersey,  bis  attorneg,  witb  full 
power  of  substitution  anb  revocation,  to  prosecute  tbis  application,  to  inalie  altera* 
tions  anb  amenbntents  therein,  to  receive  tbe  .  patent,  anb  to  transact  air  business  in 
tbe  patent  office  connecteb  therewith.  _ 


Case  Paper  No . /... 


SPECIFICATION. 

TO  rntOM  IT  MAY  COHCERN:~ 

BE  IT  KNOY/W,  that  I,  Thoma3 

A.  Edison,  of  Iilev/allyn  Park,  Orange,  in  the  County  of  Es¬ 
sex  and  State  of  Naw  Jersey .  have  invented  certain  new  and 
useful  improvements  in  Process  of  Duplicating  Tubular  Sound 
Records  (Cass  No.  1,105),  of  which  the  following  is  a  speci¬ 
fication: 

Uy  invention  relates  to  processes  of  duplicating 
tubular  sound  records  hy  a  molding  operation  in  continuous 
molds,  auu  particularly  to  the  removal  of  the  finished  or 
partially  finished  duplicate  after  the  latter  has  received 
its  impress i on  from  the  mold.  My  object  is  to  facilitate 
the  removal  of  such  duplicates  and  to  reduce  the  danger  of 
the  duplicate  being  injured  during  its  removal. 

Heretofore ,,  records  of  this  character  have  been 
duplicated  by  first,  forming  a  suitable  cylindrical  mold, 
carrying  the  record  in  relief  on  its  bore,  after  which  a 
plastic  duplicate  has  been  produced  therein,  either  by  ex¬ 
panding  a  blank  into  engagement  with  the  record  surface, 
or  by  casting  molten  material  in  the  mold,  or  by  dipping 
a  relatively  cold  mold  in  a  molten  material  so  as  to  pro¬ 
duce  a  coagulated  layer  of  material  on  the  mold,  or  by  other 
and  analogous  molding  operations,  and  the  duplicate  has  then 
been  removed  by  permitting  it  to  cool  to  a  sufficient  ex¬ 
tent  as  to  contract  away  fran  the  mold  to  clear  the  engag¬ 
ing  surfaces  and  allow  the  duplioate  to  drop  or  he  drawn 
out. 

I  find,  by  making  the  mold  very  slightly  tapering 
(the  extent  being  such  that  the  duplicate  can  be  distinguish¬ 
ed  from  a  true  cylinder  only  by  the . vernier) ,  that  the  re¬ 
moval  of  the  duplicate  is  facilitated,  since  a  smaller  ra¬ 
dial  contraction  permits  Its  removal,  thereby  necessitating 
(1) 


a  reduced  and  more  expeditious  cooling  of  the  mold  and  all  oil¬ 
ing  the  duplicate  to  he  removed  in  leas  time  than  hereto¬ 
fore. 

In  order  that  my  invention  may  he  better  under¬ 
stood,  attention  is  directed  to  the  accompanying  drawing 
forming  part  of  this  specification,  and  in  v/hich:- 

Figure  1  is  a  sectional  view  of  a  mold  having  a  bore 
tapered  to  the  extent  of  ,010^  and  shooing  a.  molded  duplicale 
record  therein,  and 

Figure  2  a  similar  view,  representing  the  mold  and 
duplicate  at;  having  contracted  by  a  reduction  in  tempera¬ 
ture,  so  an  i.o  permit  the  duplicate  to  be  removed.  In 
both  views  the  same  parts  are  represented  by  corresponding 
reference  numerals. 

The  mold  is:  made  in  any  suitable  way ,  preferably 
by  first,  coating  a  master  record  with  an  extremely  thin 
film  of  gold  by  a  process  of  vacuous  deposit,  than  electro¬ 
plating  with  copper  to  form  a  shell  1,  and  finally  by  bach¬ 
ing  up  the  shell  with,  a  brass  jacket  2,  the  original  mas¬ 
ter  being  subsequently  removed  by  shrinking  it  out,  all  as 
I  describe  in  my  patents  Wo.  713,209  of  November  11,  1902, 
and  Ho,  713,863,  of  November  18,  1902.  The  bore  of  the 
mold  is  slightly  larger  in  diameter  at  one  end  than  at  the 
other,  whereby  the  resulting  duplicates  will  be  correspond¬ 
ingly  tapered,  but  the  extend  of  this  taper  is  not  recog¬ 
nisable  to  the  eye,  and  can  be  determined  only  by  accurate 
calipers.  In  the  drawing  1  show  the  mold  with  a  bora  of 
2.200  inches  in  diameter  at  one  end,  and  2.190  inches  in 
diameter  at  the  other  end,  and  with  a  length  of  about  4.5 
inches,  the-mold  being  in  a  heated  condition.  The  taper 
can,  of  course,  vary  considerably,  say  from  .004  to  ,012, 
but  it  should  always  be  slight. 

(2) 


The  molding'  operation  is  carried  out  in  any  com¬ 
mon  and  ordinary  ■way,  such,  for  example,  as  hy  expanding  a 
heated  blank  into  engagement  with,  the  mold,  as  in  my  pat¬ 
ent,  Mo.  713,209,  before  referred  to,  or  hy  casting  molten 
material  within  the  mold,  as  described  in  my  patent  Ho. 


667,062,  of  February  5,  1901,  or  by  dipping  a  relatively 
cold  mold  in  a  molten  material  to  fora  a  coagulated  coat-, 
ing  of  the  latter  on  the  mold,  as  described  in  patent  to 
Miller  and  Aylsworth,  ho.  633,616,  of  October  1,  1901. 
After  t.hR  duplicate  has  been  thus  formed,  it  is  preferably 
removed  by  cooling  until  it  has  contracted  sufficiently  to 
clear  the  engaging  surfaces,  but  it  may  be  contracted  in 
any  other  well  known  way.  In  the  drawing  1  illustrate  the 
record  as  contracting  .006  inch,  and  the  mold  E',s  contract¬ 
ing  .0002  inch,  representing  with  ordinary  materials  a  drop 
in  temperature  of  about  30°  "P. 

V/hat  I  claim  is: 


of  duplicating  tubui 


which  c onsista  xn^f orrning  e 


tubular  continuous  raolcty^mbstantially  as 


.ar  sound  records, 
in  a  slightly 
and  for  the  pur- 


/  %.  The  process  of  duplicating  tubular  sound  records, 

'  ''  . 

which,  consists  in  forming  a  molded  record  in  a  slightly  j 

tubular  continuous  mold,  and  in  finally  contracting  tho 
duplicate  so  as  to  clear  the  engaging  surfaces,  and  permit 
the  duplicate  to  be  removed,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


.^j  The  process  of  duplicating  tubular  sound  records, 

which  consists  in  forming  a  molded  record  in  a  slight^y^  J 
tubular  continuous  mold,  and  In  finally  cooling  the  dupli¬ 
cate  so  aB.  to  contract  it  and  clear  the  engaging  surfaces 
to  pemit  the  duplicate  to  be- removed,  substantially  as  set 
forth. 

(3) 


a  molded  duplicate 
inn  slightly  from 
et  forth. 

und  records,  having 
gative  representa- 
stantially  as  set 


(4) 


TEbis  specification  signeb  anb  witnesseb  tbls  A**  bag  of  190^ 

Mitness : 

1 1  . . 6^H^Hkr.. . 

2 . _ . . 


Oath. 

State  of  \y^^r 
(Count?  of 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON  ,  tbe  above=nameb 
petitioner,  being  bttlg  sworn,  beposes  anb  sags  tbat  be  is  a  citizen 
of tbe  United  States,  and  r  resident  of  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange, 
in  the  County  of  Essex  and  State  of  New  Jersey; 

tbat  be  verilg  believes  blmself  to  be  tbe  original,  first  anb  sole  inventor  of  tbe 
IMPROVED  PROCESS  OP  DUPLICATING  TUBULAR  SOUND  RECORDS, 

bescrlbeb  anb  claimeb  In  tbe  annejeb  specification ;  tbat  be  boes  not  Imow  anb  boes 
not  believe  tbat  tbe  same  was  ever  Imowit  or  useb  bg  others  in  tbe  Vlniteb  States  of 
Hmerica  before  bis  Invention  or  biscoverg  thereof ;  or  patenteb  or  bescrlbeb  in  ang 
prlnteb  publication  in  tbe  Vlnlteb  States  of  Hmerica  or  ang  foreign  countrg  before  bis 
invention  or  biscoverg  thereof,  or  more  than  two  gears  prior  to  this  application ;  or 
in  public  use  or  on  sale  in  tbe  Vlniteb  states  for  more  than  two  gears  prior  to  this 
application,  anb  tbat  no  application  for  patent  upon  saib  invention  bus  been  ffleb  bg 
bint  or  bis  legal  representatives  or  assigns  in  ang  foreign  countrg  more  than  seven 
months  prior  to  tbe  filing  of  this  application. 

Sworn  to  anb  subscribeb  before  me  tbis 

[Seal] 


iSv/- 

£>ae  of  100  3. 

. ^  . 

IRotarg  public. 


j.R.n. 


,om  No . 370 


Paper  No . .I,li9:fc  ter. 


department  of  the  interior, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 


ihinqton,  d.  c„ 


Aug.  10,1 9 


Thorns  A.  Miaou, 

Cano  STnnk  &•  Dyer , 

i?dison  Laboratory , 
Orange, Row  Jersey. 


(use  find  below 


n  from  the  EXAMINER  i? 


U.  S,  PATENT  OFFICE,  * 

J  411010  1903 

mailed. 


arge  of  your  application, 

for  Process  of  Duplicating  Tubular  Bound  Records,  filed  July  a 
19o3, ser.  no.  160,620. 


fi.J, 

_ _  _  Commissioner  of  Patents. 

Claims  1,  8  and  3  define  a  method  of  duplicating  sound 
reoords,  claim  4  defines  a  sound  record  as  an  article  and  claim  S 
defines  a  mold. 

It  is  held  that  each  of  these  subjects  matter  constitutes 


a  distinct  and  separate  alleged  invention,  and  division  on  the 
lines  indicated  is  required. 

Attention  is  invited  to  the  patent  of 

Tat  tor  shall,  Aug.  13, 1889,#408, 998,  Gfrapho  phones,  Tablets. 


Case  No. 


J^.PaperNO" 


trail®  STATES  PATENT  OPFICE. 


Thomas  A.  Edison 

Process  of  Duplicating 
Tubular  Sound  Reoords. 

Piled  July  22nd, 1903. 
Serial  Ho.  166,520. 


iRoom  Ho . 


379. 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS. 

Sir:~ 

Replying  to  office  action  of  August  10th, 
1903,  a  reconsideration  is  requested.  The  subject  matter 
of  the  claims  relates  to  a  single  unitary  invention  and 
in  view  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case 
of  Steinmetz  vs.  Allen  109  O.G.,  549,  it  is  believed  that 
the  claims  should  be  included  In  a  single  application. 

An  action  on  the  merits  is  requested. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Thomas  A.  Edison, 

By 

His  Attorney. 

Orange,  Hew  Jersey. 

April  AT  1904. 


Paper  No. ...Scatter. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  d.  c.  April  20,1904. 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

Cara  prank  .Tj#  Jlyer, 

.Alison  Laboratory , 
Orange  ,jjew  Jersey . 


u.  s,  mm  office, 

APR  28  1904 
MAILED. 


Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  apjj  _ 
for  Process  of  hup  l  ie  at  in  jp  Tubular  Round  noaords,  filed  Ju^y^S^ 


serial  numoor  1365, 620. 


This  action  is  in  response  to  the  letter  filed  the  16th 

instant. 


Applicant  is  believed  to  be  in  error  with  reference 
to  the  provisions  of  the  decision  in  the  oaso  of  StineaetiS  vs 
Allen  cited  by  him.  Tho  only  point  Judicially  decided  in  that 
case  ’.ms  that  upon  a  final  requirement  of  division  an  ap*iLiaarifc‘ 
is  entitled  to  an  appeal  to  the  Board  of  £xarainer8-ih- Chief  ' 
inetoadTof  having  the'  right  to  petition  the  C<»:«issioner  de  was" 
the  practice  before  that  decision  was  made.  The  other,  natters 
referred  to  by  the  court  in  the  oaee  referred  to  were  me  rely  T 
dlota  and  they  have  not  the  effect  of  a  judicial  decision  as  a 
precedent .  ; 

The  f orner  requirement  is  repeated. 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPEICE, 


Thomas  A.  Edison 

Process  of  Duplicating  Tubular 
Sound  Records 

Piled  July  22,  1903 

Serial  No.;  166,520 


Room  No.  379 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS. 
Sir:  — 


Replying  to  Office  action  of  April  28, 

1904, ;a  reoonsideration  of  the  Examiner's  requirement 
is  requested. 

The  Examiner  is  believed  to  be  in  error  in  re¬ 
gard  to  the  point  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the 
case/steinmetz  vs-_  Allen  cited.  A  careful  perusal  of  the 
opinion  of  the  Court  shows  that  the  Court  considered  not 
only  applicant's  remedy  in  case  of  a  final  requirement  of 
division,  but  also  applicant's  right  to  unite  process  and 
apparatus  claims  in  a  single  application.  The  decision 
upon  this  latter  point  is  not  a  diotum  of  the  Court,  since 
tile  opinion  expressly  states  that  the  question  of  appli¬ 
cant's  remedy  in  suoh  a  oase  depends  upon  the  question 
as  to  his  right  to  uhite  suoh  claims,  and  the  latter 
point  was  therefore  necessarily  determined  first.  It  is 
obvious  that  this  must  be  the  case,  since  a  person  oan 
not  have  a  remedy  unless  he  has  some  right  whioh  is  to  be 
secured  by  the  remedy.  That  this  is  the  correct  interpre¬ 
tation  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  would  appear 
to  be  inevitable  in  view  of  the  following  language  used 
by  the  Court : 


"The  issue  is  well  defined  between  the  parties 
both  as  to  the  right  and  remedy,  in  the  Patent  Office. 
As  to  right,  petitioner  contends  that  a  union  by  an 
inventor  of  process  and  apparatustfolaims ,  which  are 
essentially  the  same  invention,  is  given  by  the  patent 
laws,  and  that  Rule  41,  so  far  as  it  takes  that  right 
away,  is  repugnant  to  those  laws  and  invalid.  As  to 
remedy,  that  the  deoision  of  the  Primary  Examiner,  con¬ 
stituted  a  final  decision  upon  the  case  and  petitiober 
waB  entitled  to  an  appeal  under  the  patent  laws  to  the 
Board  of  Examiners-in-Chief .  The  latter::-  nronositl  nrrn 

depends  upon  the  first.  - - - — - 

XXX  X-  XXX  X 
"A  ruling  having  suoh  effect  must  be  considered 
as  final  and  appealable.  Whether,  however,  to  the 
ExaminerB-in-Chief  or  to  the  Commissioner,  and  from 
the  latter  to  the  Courts,  we  may  postpone  answering  un- 
—  have  considered  the~Tig5t  "of  ^  - 


In  view  of  this  decision,  applicant  does  not  be¬ 
lieve  that  he  should  be  put  to  the  expense  of  An  appeal 
unless  the  Examiner  is  of  opinion  that  the  subject 
matter  of  the  claims  doeB  not  relate  to  a  single  uni¬ 
tary  invention. 

Respectfully  submitted 
Thomas  A.  Edison 
By 

c 0  A  / 

Orange,  N.  J.  His  Attorney. 

June,  (o  ,1904. 


v. _ Room  ...5.7.9 


Paper  No._fiiIiSA0cti0n. 


department  or  the  interior. 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  d.  c.,  Jun8  35,1904, 


Thomas  A.  .Mi 3 on, 

Oars  3?r.TrJ:  J,  T)y or, 

.“’(UHon  laboratory, 
Orango,2Tew  Jersey. 


tJ,  S  PAT7.HT  OFFICE, 

JUN  23  1904 


&  ^ 

/  y,M 


Please  find  below  a  communication  from,  the  EXAMNER  in  oharge  of  your  application A 

for  Process  of  implicating  Tubular  Sound  Reconi s,"filod  Julv^flfifNvfe 
1 903,  be  rial  number  1  <35, 580. 


Commksmer  of  Patents. 


This  a-jtionis  in  response  to  the  argument  filed  tho 
7th  instant. 

Olai/as  1,  3  and  3  are  rejected  in  view  of  tho  patent  of 
3d  is  bn, Nov.  1 1,1903, #713,309,  (181-16) ,  and  the  patent  of  ITaas  JHay 
15, 1838, #383, 974,  Pipe  Machines  it  being  held  that  it  being  an 
old  and  vrall  known  expert  lent  to  provide  tapering  molds  for  the 
more  ready  removal  of  the  molded  article,  it  could  not  destitute 
patentable  invention  to  provide  a  tapering  mold  for  the  present 
'  purpose. 

Ola.in  4  ia  rejected  in  view  of  the  patont  of  Stevens, 

May  89, 1900, {3550, 431 ,  (181-16). 

Claim  5  ia  rejected  for  want  of  invention,in  view  of  the 
grounds  of  rejection  of  claim  1. 


TOUTED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE, 


Thomas  A.  Edison 

PROCESS  OF  DUPLICATING  TUBULAR 
SOUND  RECORDS 

Filed  Juljr  22,  1903 
Serial  No.  166,520. 


:  Room  No.  379. 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS 

SIR:- 

Replying  to  Office  action  of  June  23, 
190'4,  please  amend  the  above  entitled  case  as  follows: 


Cancel  claims  1,  4  and  5, 

Claim  2,  line  2,  after  "slightly"  insert  — 


tapering. 

Claims^,  line  2,  after  "slightly"  insert  -- 

tapering. 

Renumber  claims  2  and  3  as  1  and  2  respective¬ 


ly. 


REMARKS 

The  claims  as  now  drawn  are  considered  patentable. 
The  object  of  the  invention  is  to  facilitate  the  removal 
of  the  duplicate  record  from  the  mold.  In  order  that  the 
surface  of  the  duplicate  may  clear  the  mold,  it  is  necess¬ 
ary  that  the  duplicate  shrink:  sufficiently  to  allow  its 
surface  to  clear  all  portions  of  the  surface  of  the  mold. 

In  the  patent  of  Haas  of  reoord,  there  is  no 
shrinkage  of  the  molded  artlole  and  no  effort  1b  made  to 
obtain  a  olearanoe  between  the  molded  artiole  and  the  walls 


of  the  mold, so  that  if  one  were  to  remove  a  sound  record 
from  the  mold  in  the  manner  described  in  the  said  patent, 
the  record  would  be  entirely  destroyed. 

In  Patent  Ho.  713,209  of  record,  a  process 
is  disclosed  by  which  a  duplicate  record  may  be  removed 
from  the  mold  by  shrinkage  and  relative  longitudinal  move¬ 
ment.  The  reoord  and  mold,  however,  described  in  this 
patent  do  not  taper.  The  presort  invention  is  believed 
to  be  an  improvement  over  that  of  the  patent,  since  it  per¬ 
mits  more  ready  removal  of  the  reoord  and  decreases  the 
proportions  of  -records  destroyed  at  this  stage  of  manu¬ 
facture.  The  removal  of  phonograph  records  from  molds 
without  injury  is  a  difficult  matter,  and  any  improvement 
by  which  the  difficulty  is  lessened  and  the  proportion 
of  discards  reduced  is  a  step  in  advance.  The  present 
process  has  been  arrived  at  after  careful  study  of  the 
problem,  and  is  thought  to  be  unobviouB  because  the  ^rt  of 
molding  phonograph  records  requires  the  preservation  of 
minute  elevations  and  depressions, and  ordinary  methods  of 
molding  or  of  removing  molded  articles  from  their  molds 
cannot  be  used. 

An  allowance  of  the  olaims  is  respectfully  so¬ 
licited. 


Thomas  A.  Edison 
By 

His  Attorney.  • 


Orange,  New  Jersey, 
June  <&o  1905. 


J.H.I). 


D  i  v.  __.__.2S  Room. _ .579 

“The  Commlwtoner  of  Potent*, 


department  of  the  Interior, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  d.  c.,  80,1905. 


J.  5.  PATENT  OFFICE, 

JUL  20  1905 

MAILED,;' 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

care  uranic  L»  iDyer, 

Edison  laboratory, 
orange, new  jersey. 

•  Y',"  W  Me  '■ 

Please  find,  below  a,  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 
for  Process"  of  Duplicating  Tubular  Round  Records, filed.  July  22,' 
1903, ser.no.  166,520.  '' ''$§($£ 


This  action  is  in  response  to  the  amendment  filed  the 
21  at  ultimo. 

The  office  a  an  see  nothing  of  patentable  invention  in 
the  alleged  processes  claimed  in  view  of  the  prior  art  disclosed. 

To  moJco  the  mold  tapering  in  any  of  tho  apparatus  in 
which  records  are  m$ide  and  contracted  or  shrunk  from  tho  mold, 
xtaexxixgxx  clearly  involving  as  it  doos  the  use  of  a  cannon 
expedient  in  the  molding  arts,  oarmot  be  considered  n  patontablg^;, 
invent  ion. 

. . Claims  1  and  2  have  not  boon  varied  in  substance  by  ’  '  ‘ ' 

correcting  an  obvious  error  in  each  as  has  been  done  in  the  last 
action  by  amlicant  and  accordingly  since  the  issue  seems  to  be 
clearly  defined  and  understood  by  both  applicant  and  the  office, 
the  claims  must  be  finally  rejected  in  view  of  the  former  grounds 
of  rejection  . 

•"  .  •  -  yS  1 


J-0  ✓'-<£- ^5-1? 


/ 


~boos~  ^  9°  °  ^  >  y&O . 

$0  Cl^/U^  *UJT 

^  ,7-6// 


.(50/ 


z' 

<£>  • 


,0  2-7-  %0  <2.  ?  fa  Me>° 

■  <y\.  cdw^.o  az,  .  ..^t^;  /*?  * 


Go  the  Commissioner  of  (Patents : 


ISour  petitioner'  ,  THOf.fAS  A.  EDISON,  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  residing- and- having.: his.  post-office  address  at  Llewellyn 
Park,  Orange,  Essex  County, 'New  Jersey, 

prags  tbat  letters  patent  mas  be  granted  to  btm  for  tbe  IMPROVEMENT  IN 
SCREENING  PLATES 


set  fortb  in/tbe  annexed  specification ;  and  be  berebg  appoints  jfranls  %.  JDger  (IRegis* 
tration  Wo.  560),  of  Edison  Xaboratorg,  ©range,  Wew  Serseg,  bis  attorneg,  witb  full 
power  of  substitution  and  revocation,  to  prosecute  tbis  application,  to  ntaRe  altera- 
tions  and  amendments  tberein,  to  receive  tbe  patent,  and  to  transact  all  business  in 
tbe  patent  office  connected  tberewftb. 


V 


!  P  E  C  I  I  I  C  A  I;I  0  N  . 


TO  WHOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN: - 

BE  IT  KNOWN  that  1,  Thomas  A.  Edi¬ 
son,  of  Llewellyn  Parle,  Orange,  in  the  County  of  Essex, 

State  of  New  Jersey,  have  invente’d  certain  improvements  in 
Rnrnfininf  PI  .ate  s  TTn.  of  which  the  following  is| 

a  description: 


My  invention  relates  to  improvements  in  screens 
of  the  type  formed  hy  punching  slot?  or  holes  in  metal 
plates,  and  my  object  is  to  provide  a  screening  plate  of 
this  kind  which  will  be  of  much  higher  capacity  than  plates 
as  no v/  made  . 

In  the  manufacture  of  screening  plates  prior  to 
my  invention  the  aim  has  been  to  select  material  solely 
with  regard  to  the  question  of  durability,  and  in  the  case 
of  very  fine  screens  the  material  selected  has  been  limited 
in  thickness  apparently  only  by  the  capacity  of  the  punches 
to  properly  form  the  screening  openings.  It  may  be.  stated, 
generally,  as  illustrating  the  practice  followed  before  my 
invention,  that  with  screens  of  a  minimum  mesh,  plates  of 
a  maximum  relative  thickness  have  been  employed,  sometimes 
almost  double  the  width  of  the  screening  openings,  while  as 
the  mesh  increases  the  proportionate  thickness  of  the  plates 
has  not  been  retained;  30  that  in  the  case  of  considerably 
coarser  screens  the  width  of  the  screening  openings  becomes 
equal  to  the  thickness  of  the  plates,  while  in  the  oaBe  of 
very  coarse  screens  the  width  of  the  screening  openings  is 
several  times  greater  than  the  thickness  of  the  plates. 

In  this  practice,  however,  manufacturers  have  been  guided 
solely  by  the  question  of  durability  and  not  of  efficiency. 
Suoh  prior  soreens  have,  in  faot,  been  extremely  ineffi- 
(1) 


V 


slant,  and,  in  some  instances,  only  from  ten  to  twenty  per 
cent,  of  particles  sufficiently  fino  to  pass  through  the 
screening  qpe'ningB  do,  in  fact,  pass  through  such  openings. 
Owing  to  the  low  efficiency  of  these  prior  screens  it  be¬ 
comes  necessary,  in  order  that  the  desired  loads  may  be 
handled,  that  the  screening  surface  should  be  very  exten¬ 
sive;  and,  in  consequence,  in  plants  using  screens  on  a 
large  scale,  the  screen  house  is  generally  a  relatively 
large  building,  representing  a  heavy  investment.  A  screen¬ 
ing  operation,  carried  out  under  such  circumstances,  is 
necessarily  an  expensive  one. 

I  have  determined  from  experiments  that  the 
screening  capacity  of  a  screening  plate  depends  almost  en¬ 
tirely  upon  the  thickness  of  the  plate,  and  1  have  found 
that  in  order  to  secure  the  maximum  efficiency  the  plates 
should  be  of  a  minimum  thiokness,  and  preferably  very  much 
thinner  than  the  width  of  the  screening  openings.  At  the 
present  time  sheet  iron  or  steel  cannot  be  secured  in  plateB 
of  an  available  size  thinner  than  .006  of  an  inch,  and  in 
this  material  I  have  formed  screening  openings  ranging 
from  .009  of  an  inch  up  to  .15  of  an  inch.  In  the  latter 
case  the  thickness  of  the  plates  has  been  only  one  twenty- 
fifth  of  the  width  of  the  screening  openings,  while  in  the 
former  case  the  thickness  of  the  plates  is  two-thirds  the 
width  of  the  screening  openings.  In  the  case  of  the  last 
mentioned  screen,  it  is  impracticable  at  the  present  time 

to  use  material  less  than  .006  of  an  inch  in  thickness  because 

material 

thinnerAis  not  available,  but  more  efficient  results  would 
be  secured  if  metal  only  .001  of  an  inoh,  or  even-less, 
cbuld  be  obtained.  The  possible  thinnesB  of  metal  which 
oan  be  actually  used  is  determined  also  to  a  certain  ex¬ 
tent  by  the  oharacter  of  material  being  screened,  it  being 


(2) 


'U  ' 


obvious  that  in  the  screening  of  a  very  gritty,  erosive 
material  like  iron  Ore  the  wear  on  a  very  thin  plate  would 
he  more  object! onable  than  in  the  case  of  a  soft  material, 
such  as  a  ground  Portland  cement  mixture  or  "chalk"  pre¬ 
vious  to  calcination.  When,  however,  the  plate  is  thick 
enough  to  resist  ordinary  wear  and  strong  enough  to  support 
the  load  without  objectionable  buckling,  I  find  that  the 
question  of  durability  is  unimportant,  sinoe  the  immensely 
greater  efficiency  of  the  screen  makes  their  cost  practical¬ 
ly  negligible.  Por  example,  in  one  set  of  soreens  which  I 
have  used  in  practice,  I  passed  more  than  fifty  thousand 
tons  of  material  over  each  screen  before  the  latter  became 
worn  sufficiently  as  to  require  removal,  and  each  screen 
was  then  replaced  at  a  cost  of  less  than  two  dollars. 
Moreover,  I  find  that  when  an  attempt  is  made  to  secure 
durability  by  the  employment  of  thicker  metal,  the  effi¬ 
ciency  of  the  screen  is  so  reduced  that  although  the  screen 
lasts  longer,  no  more  material  passes  through  it  before  it 
becomes  worn  out  than  would  he  the  case  with  a  very  thin 
screen  of  much  greater  efficiency.  Por  this  reason,  my  im¬ 
proved  soreens,  when  made  of  metal  as  thin  as  practicable 
to  give  the  necessary  strength,  are  not  only  enormously 
more  efficient  and  consequently  more  rapid  in  action,  hut 
they  are  practically  as  durable,  so  far  as  capaoity  is  con¬ 
cerned,  as  the  very  much  thioker  soreens  which  were  made 
prior  to  my  invention.  By  thus  providing  a  screen  of  sub¬ 
stantially  equal  durability  and  of  enormously  greater  effi¬ 
ciency  than  those  heretofore  used,  1  am  enabled  to  secure 
the  same  screening  effect,  so  far  as  hulk  of  screened  matter 
is  concerned, .by  the  employment  of  a  greatly  reduoed  screen 
surface,  and,  in  oonsequence,  am  enabled  to  construct  a 
screening  plant  at  far  leBs  cost. than  has  heretofore  been 
possible. 


(3.) 


V 


M; y  invention,  therefore,  consists  of  a  screen 
formed  of  screening  openings,  preferably  slots,  in  a  metal 
plate  of  the  minimum  practicable  thickness,  whereby  its 
efficiency  will  bo  greatly  increased  without  a  proportionate 
sacrifice  of  surabillty,  and  the  invention  preferably  con¬ 
sists  of  such  a  plate  having  a  case-hardened  screening  sur¬ 
face  and  a  malleable  central  portion,  all  as  1  shall  here¬ 
after  describe  and  claim. 

It  is  the  object  of  rny  invention  to  obtain  a  very 
high  screening  capacity  resulting  from  the  use  of  plates  of 
a  minimum  practicable  thickness  without  a  proporti onate 
sacrifice  of  durability^  In  order  that  my  invention  may  be 
better  understood  attention  is  directed  to  the  accompanying 
drawings  forming  a  part  of  this  specification,  and  in  which 
Figures  1,  2  and  3  are  cross-sectional  views  of  screen¬ 
ing  plates  embodying  my  present  invention  on  a  greatly  en¬ 
larged  scale ;  and 

Figure  4,  a  similar  view  illustrating  the  preferred 
process  which  1  carry  out  for  the  partial  hardening  of  such 
plates.  In  these  views  corresponding  parts  are  represented 
by  the  same  letters  of  reference. 

A,  represents  a  t.hin  sheet  iron  plate,  which  is  prof 
forably  suitably  hardened  as  I  will  explain,  and  which  is  pr  if 
vided  with  orificeB,  preferably  Blots  a.  The  relation  be¬ 
tween  the  thickness  of  the  plate  A,  and  the  width  of  the  ori¬ 
fices  a,  is  such  that  the  former  ..dimension  is  less,  and  pre¬ 
ferably,  very  much  less,  than  the  latter.  In  Figure  1,  I 
show  a  plate  which  is  indicated  as  being  ,Q30  of  an  inch  in 
thickness,  and  having  slots  a,  therein,  each  of  which  is  in¬ 
dicated  as  being  of  the  width  of  one  inch.  In  Figure  2,  I 
show  a  plate  which  is  indicated  as  being  .006  of  an  inch  in 
thickness,  and  having  slots  a,  therein,  which,  are  indicated 
aB  being  of  the  width  of  .160  of  an  inch.  In  Figure  3  I 
show  a  plate  which  is  indicated  as  being  .006  of  an  inch  in 
_  (4)  _ _ _ 


V 


thickness,  and  having  slots  a,  therein,  whioh  are  indicated 
as  being  of  the\ thickness/  .009  of  an  inch.  This  latter 
screen  may  be  considered  as  representing  the  minimum  width 
or  fineness  of  mesh,  and  as  representing  the  maximum  ratio 
between  the  width  of. slot  and  the  thickness  of  the  plate. 

1  have  pointed  out  that  at  the  present  time  metal  less  than 
.006  of  an  inch  is  not  available,  but,  if  such  metal  could 
be  Becured  it  should  be  employed.  From  this  minimum  width 
'Of  slot  the  screens  may  be  increased  in  mesh  until  with  the 
same  thickness  of  plate  screens  having  slots  .150  of  an 
inch  wide  are  formed,  as  shown  in  figure  2,  As  the  width 
of  the  slots  is  increased  beyond  this  latter  figure  the 
thickness  of  the  plates  should  also  preferably  be  somewhat 
increased,  so  as  to  give  them  the  desired  stiffness,  but  in 
every  case  the  aim. should  be  to  make  the  plates  just  as  thin 
|  as  possible  so  long  as  they  are  strong  enough  to  support 
the  load,  and  stiff  enough  as  not  to  buckle  immediately 
j  under  the  weight  of  the  load.  In  every  case  the  best  re- 
|  suits  are  secured  in  practice  when  the  ratio  between  the 
width  of  screening  openings  and  the  thickness  of  the  plates 
l  is  greatest,  and,  preferably,  when  such  width  is  thirty  or 
more  times  greater  than  such  thickness. 

fit#*®1  The  reason  why  my  improved  screens  are  more  effi¬ 
cient  than  the  screens  used  prior  to  my  invention  iB  that 
with  the  latter,  the  relatively  thiok  plates  become  clogged 
with  partioles  of  the  material  in  process  of  screening,  thus 
reducing  the  screening  capacity  in  a  very  short  time  to  al¬ 
most  nothing;  whereas,  if  the  plate  is  extremely  thin,  it 
does  not  become  clogged  and  can  be  operated  for  weeks  with¬ 
out  cleaning. 

In  making  my  j  improved:  soreens  1  prefer  to  proceed 
substantially  a3  follows: 

*  -jt^  ®ie  sheet  iron  plate  A,  is  secured  and  the  orifi- 


(5) 


■u 

ces  a,  are  formed  therein,  preferably,  by  a  punching  process 
with  gang  dies  or  punches.  The  plate,  after  having  been 
punched  with  the  orifices,  is  then  dipped  in  a  bath  of  molt¬ 
en  cyanide  of  potassium  for  a  few  seconds.  It  is  then  with¬ 
drawn  and  immediately  laid  upon  a  flat  iron  plate,  such  as 

B,  (Figure  4),  over  .which  is  located  a  corresponding  plate 

C,  which  is  allowed  to  drop  upon  the  punched  plate  A.  The 
sudden  chilling  to  which  the  plate  A,  will  be  subjected  by 
coming  into  contact  with  the  larger  masses  of  the  plateB 

B  and  C,  serves  to  harden  the  plate  A,  and  to  keep  it  per¬ 
fectly  flat  until  cooled.  Any  tendency  of  the  plate  A,  to 
warp  or  buckle  during  the  cooling  process  is  thus  overcome. 
After  the  punched  plate  A,  i3  sufficiently  cooled  it  is  then 
immersed  in  a  water  bath  to  dissolve  all  of  the  cyanide  of 
potassium,  and  after  this  hath  it  is  dried  and  oiled  in  any 
suitable  and  usual  manner.  Ab  a  specific  instance  of  a  con¬ 
venient  process  for  the  proper  hardening  of  plates  .006  of 
an  inch  in  thickness  and  having  3lots  therein  each  of  a 
width  of  ,009  of  an  inch,  I  will  state  that  the  plate  may 
be  allowed  to  remain  in  the  molten  bath  of  cyanide  of  pot¬ 
assium  for  thirty-five  seconds,  and  during  this  period  the 
iron  will  become  carbonized  to  a  depth  of  about  .001  of  an 
inch  on  each  side.  The  surface  hardening  to  which  the 
screening  plate  will  be  thus  subjected  between  the  plates 
B  and  C,  will  be  of  a  very  high  order,  while,  at  the  same 
time,  the  inner  portions  of  the  plate  will  be  left  suffi¬ 
ciently  soft  and  pliable  us  to  allow  the  plate  to  be  bent 
or  otherwise  manipulated.  If  the  plate  were  allowed  to  re¬ 
main  too  long  in  the  bath  of  cyanide  of  potassium  it  would 
be  rendered  object! onably  brittle,  since  the  absorption  of 
carbon  would  progress  entirely  through  the  same. 

Instead  of  the  special  surface  hardening  above 
described  for  the  proper  hardening  of  soreening  plates  of 
(6) 


tills  specific  character,  it  will  he  understood  that  surface 
hardening  of  such  screens  may  he  carried  out  hy  the  usual 
method  of  cementation  hy  packing  the  plateB  in  charcoal, 
leather  etc.  1  consider  the  process  above  described  to  he 
preferable,  however,  since  it  is  more  expeditious,  and  the 
depth  of  carbonisation  is  under  entire  control. 

Having  now  described  my  invention,  what  1  claim  as 
new  and  desire  to  secure  hy  letters  patent  is  as  follows: 

1.  As  a  new  article  of  manufacture,  a  screen  having 
openings  formed  in  a  ’  plate  of  minimum  thickness,  less  than 
the  width  of  said  openings  and  sufficient  only  to  offer 
proper  support  to  the  material  passed  .over .  the  same ,  sub¬ 
stantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 

2.  As  a  new  article  of  manufacture ,  a  screen  having 
slots  formed  in  a  plate  of  minimum  thickness,  less  than  the 
width  of  said  slots,  and  sufficient  only  to  offer  proper 
support  to  the  material  passed  over  the  same,  substantially 
as  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 

3.  As  a  new  article  of  manufacture,  a  screen  having 
openings  formed  in  a  plate  of  minimum  thickness,  less  iij 
width  than  said  openings,  sufficient  only  to  offer  proper 
support  to  the  material  passed  over  the  same,  and  having  a 
case-hardened  screening  surface  and  a  malleable  central 
portion,  substantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set  forth. 


This  specification  signed  and  witnessed  this 


day  of  July,  nineteen  hundred  three 


In  Presence  of 


(7) 


OATH. 

State  of  Hew  Jersey,  •  : 

County  of  Essex,  4 

Thomas  A.^Edison,  the  above  named  petitioner,  be¬ 
ing  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says,  that  he  is  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  and  a  resident  of  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange, 
in  the  County  of  Essex  and  State  of  Hew  Jersey;  that  he 
verily  believes  himself  to  be  the  original,  first  and  sole 
inventor  of  the  improvement  in  screening  plates  described 
and  claimed  in  the  annexed  specification;  that  the  same  in¬ 
vention  was  originally  described  and  claimed  by  him  in  an 
application  for  letters  patentfiled  June  29,  1899,  serial 
Ho.  722,229,  which  application  is  still  pending  in  the 
Patent  Office;  that  he  proposes  to  abandon  his  said  original 
application  (but  not  the  invention  thereof)  in  favor  of  the 
new  application  based  on  the  annexed  specification;  that 
he  does  not  know  and  does  not  believe  that  the  invention 
which  is  described  and  claimed  in  the  annexed  specification 
was  ever  known  or  used  by  others  in  the  United  States  of 
America  before  his  invention  or  discovery  thereof;  or  pat¬ 
ented  or  ddtsoribed  in  any  printed  publication  in  the  United 
States  of  America  or  any*  foreign  country  before  his  inven¬ 
tion  or  discovery  thereof,  or  prior  to  June  29,  1897,  or 
in  public  use  or  on  sale  in  the  United  States  prior  to  June 

29,  1897;  and  that  no  application  for  patent  upon  said  in- 

R  * 

vention  has  been  filed  by  him  or  his  legal  representatives 
or  assigns  in  any  foreign  country. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  to  be-  • 
fore  me  this  l &C?£,  day  of  \ 

July,  1903. 


3—300. 


1 


department  of  the  Interior, 


United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  AUg.19,1903. 

Thomas  A.  Jtdiaon,  fi)  S  WTBuT 

8a r*  Frank  L.  Dyer,  .  ..AUG19  1^' ■ 

Orange, <*W.n  ov  v;v  V ■ ' •  •  I 

■  beiowW'iUfomuiiic&Hon-from  tte'EX'AmHERin  'oliarga  ifi-you*  olpplicatibsi;:^- 

#167 , 989 ,f  IX  ed  Aug .  1,  1903,  for  Born  (mine  W.a tee  * 


Commissioner  of  Patents. 


Tha  words  *dase  31108*  must  be  taken  out  of  the  apooifioRtion  - 
9«o  ox  part#  Ball,  100  0.0.,  8608. 

Rho  history,  of  tha  prior  art,  las',  paragraph,  png*  i, 
continuation  of  sane,  page  8,  should  bo  atrioken  from  t.ha  speolfloa- 
t ion  as  not  pertinent  to  the  disclosure  of  tha  present  aaae}  see 
ex  parts  Sohwaltsor,  97  0.0.,  1871.  7 

She  olaims  are  rague  and  Indefinite,  and  are  not  In  any  way 
suoh  ,*apeolfio  and  dlatlnot  oiains*  as  are  required  by  Rule  87. 

Ooreens  of  suoh  relative  thickness  and  hash  as  applioanb  de¬ 
scribes  are  desoribod in  lines  88  to  93,  of  87^318,  Edison,  April 
/  2,  Kills,  Ore  and  Coal,  Sifters  and  Screens,  A,  end  since  this 

patent  was  issued  wore  than  two  years  prior  to  the  tine  of  f  iling  of 
t|».i»;  »ra>lidft won  it.  forms  a  publication  dedicating  the  use  of  tha 
1  sat|S:^o;.the  pufaW.  Claims!  and  9  are  re  Jested.  ■  . 

...flljaiw  3  is  rejected  on  the  asu  referehdbf  sintra  it  is  the  oom- 
( )  non  practice  to  oase  harden  any  article  that  may  be  subj  ected  to 

considerable  wear.  .  Exactly  applicant’s  process  of  ease-hardening 
v-:;c  -.'v.  for  Manufftcturera.-z,^. Mechanics 

plates  is  old,,  as  showii  in  Look’s  "Workshop.  ReeeiptS^d  Ralahtlflo 

1  to^tdura*,  3rd  aeries,  pages  #74  and  #81.  Whanher.  suoh  plates  ars 
pf  aroTiot  used  involves  nothing  more  than  neohenleal  skill  or  desire. 

Inasmuch  as  this  apjiiioatlon  presents  not  the  slightest  patsitf- 
abl  enoYolty^  thi  S'  action  may  be  Considered  final,  ^f  desired,  fo*f  ’ 

:  /7  '  :  ''  CascN»,.^7.^perNo.-^ . 


mum  -  a  #x«7,9aa 

purpoaaa  of  ft  spool. 

Sha  alala'a  arc  also  raj  eat  ad  on  tha  aane  rowiono  and  ref er- 
anooa  m  the  olaina  in  applicant*  a  oaaa,  #733,389*  filed  June  39, 
1899,. 


Exaninar, 

niriaion  XX7. 


Ca'X  Nu. 


£7..H^:  No . L 


UNITE#  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE. 

Thomas  A.  Edison,  ; 

Screening  Plates,  : 

:  Room  No.  315, 

Filed  August  1,  1903,  : 

Serial  No.  167,929.  S 

HON..  COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS, 

Sir:- 

I  note  that  the  examiner 

objects  to  the  statement  of  the  prior  art  on  pages  1  and  2 
of  the  specification.  In  many  oaseB  a' proper -recitation 
of  the  prior  art  is; helpful  to  a  clearer  understanding  of 
the  later  invention,  and  this  seems  to  he  the  case  in  the 
present  application.  The  statements  to  whioh  the  examiner 
objects  show  that  in  the  practice  of  the  art  prior  to  ap¬ 
plicant's  invention  the  users  of  screens  proceeded  along 
lines  diametrically  opposed  to  those  followed  by  Mr.  Edison. 
These  statements,  therefore,  tend  to  support  the  patentable 
character  of  the  new  Boreens.  It  is,  of  course,  recognized 
that  in  the  oase  of  any  invention  depending  for  its  novelty 
on  proportions,  size,  materials  etc.,  much  greater  diffi¬ 
culty  is  experienced  in  demonstrating  patentability  than  in 
the  case  of  inventions  which  present  new  structural  features 
or  combinations.  Consequently,  in  the  former  oase  it  is 
submitted  that  good  practice  Bhould  permit  an  applicant  to 
refer  to  the  prior  art  and  the  practice,  therein  in  order 
that  his  invention  might  be  more  clearly  differentiated 
therefrom.  Of  course,  if  the  statements  to  whioh  the  exam¬ 
iner  objects  are  inaccurate  then  they  should  undoubtedly 
be  erased,  but  as  these  statements  are  not  criticised  it  is 
presumed  that  the  exaininer  agrees  with  their  correctness. 

It  is  not  seen  that  the  decision  of  the  present 
(1)  Case  Nu..h(Z..  Paper  No . 


Commissioner  in  ex  parte  Schweitzer,  C.  D.  1901  -  179, 
hears  particularly  on  the  present  case.  In  that  case  the 
claims  we re  clearly  objectionable  on  the  ground  of  prolix¬ 
ity,  and  if  they  were  not  prolix  then  they  were  dearly 
lacking  in  definition.  Section  48-88  of  the  Revised  Statutes 
provides  that  an  applicant  "shall  particularly  point  out 
and  distinctly1  :claim  the  part,  improvement  or  combination 
which  he  claims  as  his  invention  or  discovery".  Under  this 
statutory  requirement  the  universal  praotice  is  to  make  the 
claims  as  definite  and  concise  as  possible  and  omit  all  un¬ 
necessary  verbiage.  The  same  Bection  of  the  statute  also 
provides  that  in  the  case  of  the  specification  the  appli¬ 
cant  shall  "distinguish  it  (his  invention)  from  other  in¬ 
ventions".  Under  this  general  language  of  the  statute  ap¬ 
plicants  are  given  more  or  less  latitude  in  the  way  in  whicl 
they  seek  to  distinguish  their  inventions  from  the  prior 
art.  It  would  seem  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  best  way 

to  distinguish  the  invention  from  the  prior  art  would  be  to 

. the  prior,  art  and  then  to  describe 

first  explain  the  new  invention  in  order  that  the  difference 
between  the  two  might  be  appreciated.  It  is  hoped,  there¬ 
fore,  so  far  as  this  formal  requirement  is  concerned,  the 
examiner  will  withdraw  the  same. 

It  is  noted  that  the  examiner  also  objects  to 
the  claims  as' being  vague  and  indefinite.  The  fact  is  apprer 
ciated  that  the  claims  are  not  as  clear  out  as  applicant 
would  like  them  to  be,  but  this  difficulty  arises  largely 
from  the  oharacter  of  the  invention.  Undoubtedly,  appli¬ 
cant  has  done  something  that  was  never  done  before,  and  as 
the  result  of  the  departure  has  secured  superior  results. 
Applicant’s  invention  is  certainly,  therefore,  'character¬ 
ized  by'  novelty  and  utility. 

The  only  other  question  for  determination  in  con¬ 
sidering  the  point  of  patentability  is  whether  or  not  the 
(2, 


II 


changes  made  by  applicant  amount  to  Invention.  In  the  con¬ 
sideration  of  this  question  I  direct  the  examiner's  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  faot  that  what  applicant  has  done  is  the  direct 
reverse  of  what  had  been  done  before  him,  and  the  direct 
reverse  of  what  skilled  persons  would  be  expected  to  do. 

In  other  words,  prior  to  applicant' 3  invention  it  was  sup¬ 
posed  that  the  best  screens  would  be  those  which  were  re¬ 
latively  thick  in  order  to  secure  great  durability,  that 
being  the  important  desideratum.  Eor  this  reason,  the 
screens  made  before  applicants  invention  were  formed  of 
material  as  thick  as  possible,  and  selected  generally  with 
reference  to  the  capacity  of  the  punches.  What  applicant 
did  was  to  use  the  thinnest  material  possible  so  long  as 
the  load  would  be  properly  carried.  The  question  of  wear 
was  not  considered  at  all,  but  the  question  of  efficiency 
was  alone  considered.  As  the  result  of  this  departure  ap¬ 
plicant  has  produced  a  screen  which  is  not  only  enormously 
more  efficient  than  the  screens  which  preceded  his  inven¬ 
tion,  but  which  so  far  as  oapacity  is  concerned  is  prac¬ 
tically  as  durable  as  those  which  preceded  him.  Consequent¬ 
ly,  with' the  new  screen  applicant  is  enabled  to  effect 
and 

enormous  saving  in  spaceA economy  in  screening  houses  in 
large  commercial  undertakings  necessitating  screening  oper¬ 
ations  on  a  large  settle. 

So  far  as  the  particular  language  of  the  olaims 
is  concerned  applicant  has  no  particular  preference  or 
hide-bound  adherence  to  the  same,  and  would  be  grateful  if 
the  examiner  can  suggest  any  language  which  would  be  more 
suitable  to  his  views. 

So  far  as  the  merits  of  the  olaims  are  concerned, 

I  note  that  the  examiner  rejects  the  same  on  Edison's  prior 
application,  No.  371,316}  but  the  examiner's  attention  is 

Case  No . 


(3) 


II 


called,  to  the  fact  that  this  application  is  a  continuation 
of  applicant's  prior  case,  filed  June  29,  1899,  serial  Ho. 
722,229,  which,  therefore,  carries  applicant's  date  of  fil¬ 
ing  ahead  of  the  patent  already  issued. 

Reconsideration  of  the  oase  is  respectfully  re¬ 
quested. 


Orange,  IT.  J. 

August  25,  1903. 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 


His  Attorney. 


J7.  . 


(4) 


United  States  Patent  Office,  ,  r T 

Washington,  d.  c.,  Bept.  86,>1993. ' 

Thomas  A.  Edison, 

Car*  Prank  T..  Bynr, 

Orange,  N.J. 

Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  ymcr'apptiaiHoh, 

#3.(57,989,  filed  Aug.  1,  1903,  for  Screening  Plates. 


RJ.  aSLr.. 

_  Commissioner  of  Patents. 

\C,V;v  .  ' 

Case  amended  Aug.  86,  1903. 

Who  words  "case  No.  1108*  must,  ha  erased  from  the  specification. 
The  objsation  to  last  paragraph,  pane  1,  and  its  continuation,  fcr>&6S 
8,  Is  repeated;  it.  Is,  moreover,  open  to  argument.,  in  view  of  the 
record  An  this  oasa,  whether  it,  has  boon  tha  praotioo  previous  to 

this'  .invention  to  use  plates  of  a  "maximum  relative  thioknase - . 

— ,  ...sonatinas  almost  double  tha  width  of  tha  screening  openings".  _ 

In  view  of  the  patent  to  Cross,  383,038,  Kay  80,  1897,  Ore  and  Goal, 
flifters  and  Screens,  0,  oitad  in  oaaa  Ho. 788, 889,  the  latter  state¬ 
ment  is  shown  to  bo  far  from  aoourata.  Ab  to  applicant i s  statement 
that,  the  present  oasa  is  a  continuation  of  application,  serial  number 
? 88/889,  for  tha  sumo  subjeotlraatter,  and  which  has  bean  fi.na3.ly  re¬ 
jected  by  examiner,  and  tha  rejection  affirmed  by  both  the  Board  of 
Examiners  in  Chief  end  the  Commissioner,  it  may  be.  said  that.  it.  is 
contrary  to  the  faots  of  reoord.  This  case  is  a  separate,  and  in¬ 
dependent  oase,  bearing  no  such  relation  to  the  previous  oaae  at.  all. 
If  claims  of  the  scope  of  the  present  claims  are  to  be  prosecuted  in  {& 
the  face  of -the ’'disclosure  of.  patent.  671,316,  they  muat  be  presented 
in  an  applioation  which  properly  antedates  that,  case,  and  not  in  a 
oaae  filed  more  than  two  years  after  that,  patent  was  issued.; 

It  is  old,  as  shown  in  the  patent  to  Croes,  cited,  and  866,386 
Oastler,  Haroh  81,  1888,  Sifters  and  floreens,  C,  cited  in  the  earlier 

Case  N0....O  .  Prpcr  i'lo . 


oa an,  to  provide  screen  surfaces  with  openings  nuoh  greater  in  their 
lateral  dimensions  then  the  thickness  of  the  material  f rom  which  the 
soreen  has  been  made. 

Claims  1  and  8  are  again  rejeoted  on  the  reasons  and  references 
of  record..  It  is  old  as  shown  to  oase  harden  plates,  it.  so  happens 

to  exaotly  applicant’s  way  (but  how  is  immaterial)  for  any  purpose, 
and  it  is  not  invention  to  punoh  soreens  from  suoh  material  whether 
thick  or  thin.  In  addition  to  the  above,  ae  showing  the  utter  lack 
of  patentable  novelty  presented  in  this  application  still  further, 
there  oan  be  found  on  file  in  the  Scientific  Library  of  the  Patent 
office  a  trade  oatalogue  of  Praser  and  Chalmers,  for  1P93,  filed 
Oot.  16,  1693,  on  the  snbjeot  of  screening  plates.  On  page  P  ooours 

the  following t  -  "We  furnish  this  work  in  -  any  thickness  from 

Bo.  30,  wire  gauge  to  fa  inoh,  with  else  perforations  proportioned 
to  the  thiokness  of  metal1*  etc.  fable  III,  paee  9,  gives  suoh  a 
sheet  of  a  thiokness  somewhat  over  .01  of  an  inoh.  In  instructions 
on  ordering  it  is  stated  that  the  “size  sheets  and  kind  of  metal, 
thiokness  of  metal,  shape  and  size  of  perforations*  should  be  care¬ 
fully,'  stated.  on  pages  83  and  33  are  shown  a  series  of  outs  frm 
actual  screens  having  slots  much  greater  in  width  then  the  metal 
in  which  it  was  stated  the  soreens  could  be  furnished,  and  it.  is  to 

be- presuroed-th-at  such  screens  oould  ba  furnished  on  an  order  with¬ 
out  quest,  loh.  While  applicant,  states  that,  he  uses  sheets  of  .008 
of  an  ip Oh  in  thiokness,  that  is  merely  a  matter  of  degree  and  in¬ 
volves  no  patentable  novelty  whatever. 

Inasmuch  as  it  is  impossible  for  examiner  to  see  anything  pat¬ 
entable  whatever  in  this  application,  it  is  hoped  this  action  will 
be  considered  final  for  the  purpose  of  appeal.. 


Xxaniner, 

division  TXT. 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE, 


Thomas  A.  Edison  : 

Screening  Plates  : 

Room  No.  315. 

Filed  August  1,  1903  : 

Serial  No.  167,929  : 

HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS. 

Sir:  — 

Replying  to  Office  action  of  September  25, 

1903,  please  amend  the  above  entitled  case  by  cancelling 
"(Case  No.  1,108)",  in  line  4  of  page  1. 

Applicant  requests  that  the  reference  to  Edison 
patent  No.  671,316  of  April  2,  1901  as  an  anticipation  of 
the  claims,  be  withdrawn  for  reasons  previously  stated. 

’//Nile  it  is  true  that  the  present  application 
differs  to  some  extent  from  applicant 'aboriginal  applica¬ 
tion  covering  the  same,  invention,  the  present  applica¬ 
tion  is  a  continuation  of  the  former  application.  The 
present  application  was  filed  while  the  original  applica¬ 
tion  was  pending,  and  the  oath  td  the  present  application 
states  that  applicant  proposes  to  abandon  the  original 
application  (but  not  the  invention  thereof)  in  favor,  of  -ohe 
present  application.  This  state  of  facts  is  similar  to 
those  in  the  case  of  International  Tooth  Crown  Company  vs. 
Richmond,  decided  by  Judges  Wallace  and  Shipman  in  the 
U'.S .  Circuit  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York, 
reported  in  39  O.G.,  1550.  In  that  case  a  defense  was  set 
lip  that  the  invention  had  been  in  public  use  for  more  than 


two  years  before  the  application  for  the  patent,  and  there¬ 
fore,  the  patent  was  invalid.  The  public  use  took  place 
during  the  latter  part  of  1877,  and  the  application  upon 
which  the  patent  was  granted  was  filed  December  20,  1880. 
The  Court  stated  that  "the  defense  would  be  established 
were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  Low  had  made  an  applica¬ 
tion  which  was  filed  January  6,  1879,  which  had  never  been 
abandoned  for  substantially  the  same  invention."  "That 
application  contained  some  matters  foreign  to  the  subject 
of  the  second’  application;  but  so  far  as  it  related  to 
the  inventions  covered  by  the  claims  of  the  patent,  it  did 
not  differ  from  the  Becond  application,  except  in  a  sin¬ 
gle  particular."  The  original  application  had  bean  re¬ 
jected  by  the  Examiner,  and  various  interpolations 
had  been  made  therein,  and  it  was  suggested  by  the  Exam¬ 
iner  that  the  applicant  had  better  make  a  new  application 
and  thereupon  the  second  application  was  drawn  up  dififer-!- 
ing,  as  before  stated,  to  some  extent  from  the  original 
application,  but  as  there  had  been  no  acquiescence  on  the 
part  of  the  applicant  in  the  rejection  of  his  first  appli¬ 
cation  and  the  first  application  had  not  been  abandoned 
at  the  time  of  the  filing  of  the  second  application,  the 
whole  procedure  was  held  to  be  one  continuous  proceeding, 
the  Court  using  the  following  language: 


"There  was  no  aot  on  the  part  of  Low  which 
was  equivalent  to  a  withdrawal  of  his  first  appli¬ 
cation,  or  to  an  acquiescense  in  its  rejection.  He 
merely  made  a  flew  application  as  a  more  convenient 
way  of  presenting  the  original  application  for  the 

of  the  offioe  after  he  had  been  assured 
that  the  rejection  of  his  first  application  would  be 
reconsidered  and  a  patent  would  be  granted  for  the 
present  invention.  Both  applications  are  to  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  parts  of  one  continuous  proceeding,  and 
the  two  years  within  which  the  invention  could  hot 
be  pubiidy  used  without  invalidating  the  patent  did 
not  begin  to  run  until  January  9,  1879.  (Godfrey  v 
Eames,  I  Wall., 317;  Smith  v.  Goodyear  Co;, 93  U.S. 

500;  Graham  v.  Genera  Lake  Co.,  11  Eed.Rep.138.)" 


-  2  - 


The  same  principles  were  also  recognized  by  Jud¬ 
ges  Ache son  and  Buffington  in  the  U.S.  Circuit  Court  for 
the  Y/e stern  District  of  Pennsylvania  in  Dederick  vs. 

Pox,  63  O.C.,  1963.  The  following  language  used  by  the 
Court  is  pertinent  to  the  present  case: 

"Ho?/  these  facts  evidence  abandonment  we  oannot 
see.  Par  from  being  a  giving  up  it  was  a  most 
persistent  pursuit,  a  continuous  demand  for  the  claims 
first  asked  for.  The  substantial  elements  of  the  in¬ 
vention  were  Bet  forth  in  the  original  application, 
claims  broad  enough  to  cover  the  features  of  inven¬ 
tion  6mb raced  in  the  tv/o  claims  afterward  made,  as 
noted  above.  To  our  mind  these  do  not  exceed  the 
scope  of  the  original  claims,  but  were  made  in  the 
exercise  of  a  due  caution  on  the  applicant's  part  to 
forestall  anticipated  evasion.  It  view  of  the  dis¬ 
closure  and  explanation  of  invention  made  in  the 
original  application,  their  allowance  was  proper.  We 
are  of  the  opinion  the  entire  course  of  procedure 
was  in  effect  a  continuous  one  from  the  filing  of 
the  first  application  until  final  allowance,  and  that 
there  was  no  abandonment  by  Dederick." 


See  also  the  decision  in  Exparte  BeggB  SO  O.G. 

1130. 

The  references  cited  in  Office  letter  of  August 
19,  1903  have  already  been  fully  considered.  In  regard 
to  the  new  reference  cited  in  the  last  Office  action 
applicant  is  unable  to  find  any  disclosure  of  the  inven¬ 
tion  claimed  or  any  suggestion  v/hich  might  lead  up  to  said 
invention.  This  trade  catalogue  merely  sets  forth  mater¬ 
ials  from  which  screening  plates  might  have  been  construct-* 
ed  in  acoordanoe  with  Kr.  Edison's  invention,  if  it  had 
occurred  to  any  one  to  do  so;  but  it  did  not  occur  to  any 
one  to  use  plates  of  minimum  thickness  and  form  openings 
therein  which  were  wider  than  the  thickness  of  said  plates. 

The  universal  practice  prior  to  present  invention 
was  to  use,  in  making  screens  of  fine  mesh,  material  as 
thick  as  the  punohes  were  able  to  perforate,  in  order 
that  the  screens  might  be  durable ,  and  the  idea  of  using 
soreens  as  thin  as  possible  would  have  been  considered  by 
manufacturers  as  decidedly  disadvantageous,  as  it  would 


have  been  thought  that  such  screens  would  wear  out  too 
soon  to  he  of  any  practical  use.  Applicant's  disoovery 
as  to  the  means  hy  which  the  efficiency  of  screening 
plates,  especially  those  of  very  fine  mesh,  might  he  enor¬ 
mously  increased,  rendered  it  possible  to  use, commercially, 
plates  of  minimum  thickness  and  to  disregard  the  short 
life  thereof,  since,  as  before  stated,  the  screening 
capacity  of  these  novel  plates  1b  equal  to  or  greater 
than  the  thicker  and  more  enduring  screens  previously 
known,  because  of  such  increased  efficiency. 

It  is  believed  that  invention  must  have  been  em¬ 
ployed  by  Mr.  Edison  in  his  conception  of  these  facts, 
since  they  did  not  occur  to  any  one  of  the  many  users  of 
screens  prior  to  Edison.  This  being  so,  the  means  by 
which  the  invention  is  broughtbinto  use,  if  novel,  should 
be  patentable.  The  novelty  of  the  said  means  is  apparent 
from  the  fact  that  none  of  the  references  show  or  describe 
screens  formed  from  plates  of  mini  man  thickness  and  hav¬ 
ing  the  other  characteristics  set  forth  in  the  claims. 

Eor  these  reasons  an  allowance  of  the  claims 
is  respectfully  solicited. 

Thomas  A.  Edison 
By 

his  attorney 

Orange, JsT.  j. 

May  £'■]  1904. 


b-i  - 


Dlv--a&.  Room  ....sifl 


DEPARTMENT  >.OF  THE  .INTERIOR, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  d.  c„  June  8,  1904. 
Thomas  A.  Bello  on,  p 

Care  Prank  1.  Dyer, 

Orange,  B. J. 

Please  find  belc 


!!  j,  (IF^CE, 

JUN  8  1<HW  • 


.  Li 


a  communication  from  the  E/AHIHER  in  charge  of  your  application, 

£167,929,  filed  August  1,  1903,  for  Screening  Plates. 


If.  A  , 


Case  argued  Kay  6,  1904. 

On  further  oonsl derat ion. the  reference  617,316,  will  be  with¬ 
drawn,  but  the  olalms  of  this  application  are  rejected  In  view  of 
the  unfavorable  decision  by  all  the  trihuhals  of  the  office  In 
'application  722,229,  which  oase  is  for  the  some  subjeotmatter  as 
theipresent  case.  See  Barratt  vs.  Duell,  Commissioner  of  Patents, 
87  0.0. ,  1075,  and  Pay  vs.  Duell,  Commissioner  of  patents,  90  0.0. , 


Division  XXP. 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPPXCE, 


Thomas  A.  Edison  : 

SCREENING  PLATES  : 

Room  No  .  315 . 

Piled  August  1,  1903  : 

Serial  No.  167,929  : 

HHHflfRABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS, 

Sir:  — 

Replying  to  Office  action  of  June  8, 
1904,  applicant  requests  that  the  Examiner's  action  he  made 
final. 


Very  respectfully, 

Thomas  A.  Edison 


His  Attorney. 


Orange,  N.J. 
September  ^ 


1904. 


2—260. 


M.B.O. 

D1.V....J2JB.  Room.JUB.. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

£  .  United  States  Patent  Office, 

'  Washington,  d.  c>,  8«pt.  86,  1904. 

T.  A.  Edison,  r;"‘ 

Care  P.  L.  Dyer, 

Orange,  lr.J. 

Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application 


#167,929, f  lied  Aug.  1,  1905,  for  8oreenlng  Plate*, 

.  _  Commissioner  of  Patents. '  ' 


Case  brought  up  by  letter  of  Sept.  9,  1904. 

Claim  1  in  this  case  is  substantially  identical  in  so ope  with 
olalm  1  in  application  722,229,  while  olalm  8  is  substantially 
identical  in  scope  with  claim.  8  in  that  applloatlon,  and  olalm  5 
is  substantially  identloal  in  scope  with  olalm  5  of  that  application.: 

,  .Zn  Tiew  of  the  facta  above  stated  and  that  this  application  is 
for  jthe, identical  SubJeotmatter  of  application  788,889  (see  state¬ 
ment,  in  the  oath  of  this  application)  the  oleins  in  which  applica¬ 
tion  have  been  rejected  by^tha  tribunals  in  the  patent  Of floe,  it 
must^c/held  that  thla  oaee  le  res  adjudicate. 

''viy^Thc.  olairaa  arc  finally  rejected...  ■ 

\  ...  ••  .  ,  .' 

Act  * g  Examiner , 

Division  XXV 


united  states  patent  office. 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 
SCREENING  PLATES, 

Filed  August  1,  1903,  : 

Serial  No.  167,929. 


HONORABLE. COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS | 

SIB:- 

In  the  above  entitled  application  I 
hereby  appeal  to  the  Examiners  in  chief  from  the  deoiBion 
of  the  Primary  Examiner,  isfoo  on  September  26th,  1904,  re¬ 
jected  the  claims  of  thiB  case  on  the  references  of  record 
and  I  assign  the  following  reasons  of  appeal :- 


(1)  The  Examiner  erred  in  deciding  that  the  refer¬ 
ences  of  record  disclose  the  invention  defined  by  said 
claims. 


(2)  The  Examiner  erred  in  rejecting  said  claims. 

(3)  The  Examiner  erred  in  not  allowing  Baid  claims. 


I  .hand  you  herewith  check  for  $10.  in  payment 
of  the  gove'rnment  fee  on  this  appeal.  An  oral  hearing  is 
requested^ 


Very  respectfully, 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON, 


His  Attorney. 


Orange,  N.J, 
September  7th,  1906. 


it—2V0. 


D-1V....25..  Room . J515  Paper  No. 


United  States  Patent  Office, 


T. A. Edison, 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Sept  .  19  f 


Care  E. I. Dyer, 

Orange,  N.J. 


1905. 


J'/ctwe  jlihtl  hr.lfjtt:  u  (t/irtiniiiij  cntitni  from •  fJi-o  EXAMINER  In  <'}urrf  r  of  your  of/plf-oatUrfn} 

#167,929,  filed  Aug. 1,1903,  for  Screening  Plates.  (  ■ 


Enclosed  find  examiner .s  statement. 


H.l.fl. 


Before  tha 

Hon. Board  of  Xxaalners-ln-Chlef 
On  Appeal. 


Hr.  Prank  1.  Dyer  for  applloant. 


Xxaminer*s  Statement. 


In  view  of  the  faot  that  this  application  la  for  tha  identi¬ 
cal  subjeotmatter  (see  statement  In  the  oath)  of  application  783,829, 
which  applioation  has  been  finally  rejeoted  by  all  the  tribunals 
In  the  Patent  Office,  and  whioh  applioation  is  now  abandoned,  and 
in  view  of  the  further  faot  that  claims  1,  8  and  5  of  this  ease  dr* 
substantially  the  same  as  olaims  1,  S  and  8,  respeotlTeljr,  of  that 
applioation,  it  has  been  held  that  the  question  of  patentability 
of  0l*?rI?lSi:h*Tl,!,g  th®  80°P*  °r  6ha  in  this  oass  is  res 

adju'iti^rfct^' 

The  oaee  is  reepeotfully  submitted. 


Aot*g  Primary  Bxaminer, 
Division  XXV. 

Boom  315,  0.  s.  Patent  Office, 

September  19,  1905. 


Applioation  #167,989, 
Thomas  A.  Bdison, 
Screening  Plates, 
Piled  August  1,  1908, 


Cases  in  which  oral  hearings 


are  waived,  and  briefs  submitted,  will  be 


considered  earlier  than  the  date  of  hearing  set,  if  opportunity  offers. 


The  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Examiner  in  the  case  of . 

. .for  a  patent  for  an  improvement  in 

' - . . . . 


■jL 


,  190:3.,  Serial  JTo.J. 
Examiners ^in-  Chief,  'H<y. 


,JZs^4i  will  be  heard  by  the 

'Jfrr 


If  appellant,  or  his  attorney,  shall  not  appear  at  that  time  the  hearing  will 
be  regarded  as  waived,  and  the  case  will  be  decided  upon  the  record. 


Commissioner  of  Patents. 


Very  respectfully. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON 
SCHBENINO  PLATES 
PILED  AUGUST  1,  1903 
SERIAL  NO.  167,929 


ON  APPEAL  TO  THE  BOARD  OP 
EXAMINERS  IN  CHIEF 


BRIBE  FOR  APPELLANT. 


The  Invention  olaimed  in  the  present  application 
was  originally  claimed  in  an  application  filed  June  29, 
1899,  Serial  No.  722,229.  The  claims  in  thin  early  appli¬ 
cation  were  finally  rejeoted  hy  the  Examiner  and  an  appeal 
wae  then  taken  to  this  tribunal  who  affirmed  the  Examiner 
hy  an  opinion  rendered  March  15,  1902.  The  oaee  wae  then 
appealed  to  the  Commissioner  and  the  decision  of  the  Exam¬ 
iners  in  Chief  was  affirmed  May  26,  1903.  After  this  de¬ 
cision  had  been  rendered  the  applioant  beoame  convinced 
that  the  claims  in  the  oase  were  not  limited  to  the  real 
invention,  being  broader  than  the  invention,  and  in  pref¬ 
erence  to  taking  a  further  appeal  on  the  broad  olaimB,  de¬ 
sired  to  proseoute  an  application  having  narrower  olaimB . 
The  Patent  Offioe  rules,  however,  do  not  permit  the  entry 
of  an  amendment  affecting  the  merits  of  the  oase  after  an 
appeal  has  been  taken,  exoept  by  order  df  the  Commissioner, 
and  the  Commissioner  does  not  grant  suoh  requests  for  any 
reasons  whioh  oould  have  been  urged  in  the  present  oase 
so  that  it  beoame  neoessary  to  file  a  new  application.  The 
present  application  was  therefore  filed  during  the  pendenoy 
of  the  original  application  and  the  latter  application 
(but  not  the  invention  thereof)  was  abandoned.  The  pres- 


ent  case  oovers  the  same  invention  but  is  based  upon  a 
more  ample  speoif ioation,  and  the  present  claims  are  more 
limited  in  soope  than  those  of  the  original  case. 

The  present  claims  were  rejected  in  the  first 
Office  action  upon  Patent  Ho.  671,316  of  April  2,  1901  to 
applicant,  and  in  the  next  action  upon  references  cited  in 
the  earlier  case,  and  upon  a  new  reference,  namely:-  a 
trade  catalog  of  Eraser  &  Chalmers  filed  in  the  Patent 
Offloe  library  on  Ootober  16,  1893.  Applicant  presented  an 
argument  requesting  the  withdrawal  of  Patent  No.  671,316 
as  a  reference,  sinoe  this  application  is  a  continuation 
of  the  application  filed  June  29,  1899,  and  tho  Examiner 
thereupon  withdrew  such  reference  and  rejected  the  claims 
upon  the  unfavorable  decisions  by  all  the  tribunals  of  the 
Patent  Offioe  in  the  original  application  No.  722,729  and 
held  that  the  question  of  patentability  of  the  claims  in 
this  application  is  res  adjudioata.  This  rejection  having 
been  made  final, an  appeal  has  now  been  taken. 

The  Examiner  states  that  claimB  1,  2  and  3  in 
this  case  are  substantially  the  same  as  claims  1,  6  and  3 
respectively  of  application  No.  722,729.  While  it  is  true 
that  the  olaims  of  this  case  are  based  upon  the  identical 
Bubjeot-matter  of  the  prior  application,  an  inspection  of 
the  olaims  will  show  that  they  are  more  limited  than  the 
olaims  in  said  application.  Claim  1  of  the  original  ap¬ 
plication  reads  as  follows 

"As  a  new  artiole  of  manufacture,  a  very 
thin  metal  plate  having  screening  orifices 
therein  of  greater  width  than  the  thiokness 
of  said  plate,  substantially  as  set  forth." 

The  present  olaim  1  readB  as  follows :- 

"As  a  new  artiole  of  manufacture,  a  soreen 
having  openings  formed  in  a  plate  of  minimum 


thickness i  less  than  the  width  of  daid  open¬ 
ings  and  sufficient  only  to  offer  proper  sup- 
'  port  to  the  material  passed  over  tho  same, 
substantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  sat 
forth". 

The  early  claim  specifies  merely  a  very  thin 
metal  "plate.  The  present  olaim  specifies  that  the  plate 
must  be  of  inlnimiaa  thiokness  -  the  least  possible  thick¬ 
ness  consistent  with  the  offering  of  proper  support  to  the 
material  which  neoessarily  passes  over  the  same  during  the 
screening  operation.  ClalmB  2  and  3  are  similarly  limit¬ 
ed  and  differ  from  claims  6  and  3  respectively  of  the  orig¬ 
inal  case  in' the  same  way. 

It  is  believed  that  the  present  claims  cannot 
properly  be  held  to  be  res  adjudicate,  because  claims  hav¬ 
ing  this  limitation  were  not  passed  upon  in  the  original 
case  by  the  Examiner  or  either  of  the  appellate  tribunals 
and  as  an  appeal  disposes  of  only  such  matters  as  are  be¬ 
fore  the  appellate  tribunals,  it  is  dear  that  there  could 
have  been  no  adjudication  upon  the  present  claims. 

It  is  therefore  believed  that  the  patentability 
of  this  oase  should  be  determined  in  the  Bame  way  aB  an 
original  application,  except  that  its  filing  date  should  be 
considered  the  same  as  that  of  the  early  application. 

An  examination  of  the  references  shows  that 
applicant's  invention  is  novel,  since  all  the  references 
whioh  disclose  screening  plates  having  orifices  of  greater 
width  than  the  thiokness  of  the  plate,  are  plates  whioh 
are  of  greater  thiokness  than  is  neoessary  for  properly 
supporting  the  materials  passed  over  the  same.  None  of 
the  references  disclose  a  careening  plate  of  minimum  thick¬ 
ness  or  one  sufficient  only  to  offer  support  to  the  ma¬ 
terial  passed  over  the  same.  The  question  of  patentabil¬ 


ity  therefore  resolves  itself  into  the  question  whether 


or  not  Invention  was  required  to  oonoelve  and  produoe 
the  article  of  manufacture  olaimed.  It  is  admitted  by 
applioant  that  materials  were  in  existence  at  the  date  of 
his  invention  from  whioh  the  new  soreening  plate  could 
be  manufactured  -  that  is,  he  oould  have  purchased  from 
Eraser  &  ChalmerB  and  possibly  from  other  manufacturers 
metal  sheets  or  plateB  of  Buffiolent  thinness  to  be  formed 
into  a  screen  embodying  the  invention.  He  does  not  olaim 
to  have  invented  extremely  thin  sheet  metal  for  this  pur¬ 
pose  nor  punches  for  forming  the  perforations  in  said 
sheets.  The  Eraser  &  Chalmers  catalog  therefore  appears 
to  have  no  bearing  whatever  upon  the  olaims  in  this  case 

sinoe  it  does  not  describe  screens  of  minimum  thickness 

which  is 

and/lesB  than  the  width  of  the  screening  orifioes.  It  is 
true  ’'of.  almost  every  invention  that  materials  are  on  the 
market  from  which  it  may  be  oonstruoted.  The  important 
faot  is,  however,  that  no  such  screens  as  those  olaimed 
were  on  the  market,  nor  are  Buch  soreems  Bhown  or  described 
in  any  of  the  references  oited  by  the  Examiner. 

The  screen  invented  by  applioant  accomplishes 
a  new  and  useful  result.  It  enables  every  fine  materials 
to  be  screened  in  as  effioient  a  manner  aB  o parser  mater¬ 
ials.  In  all  prior  soreening  operations  of  fine  mater¬ 
ials  the  screens  were  of  very  much  less  effloienoy  than 
those  UBedfah  ooareer  materials  and  therefore  it  was  nec¬ 
essary  to  pass  the  material  over  the  screens  again  and 
again,  or  over  a  muoh  greater  extent  of  screening  surface 
than  with  applicant's  improved  screen.  No  one  prior  to 
Edison  appears  to  have  known  that  the  efficiency  of  a 
soreen  depends  upon  the  relation  between  the  thickness  of 
the  plate  and  the  width  of  the  openings.  If  it  had  been 
known  that  effloienoy  increases  as  the  ratio  between  the 


width  of  the  opening, and  the  thickness  of  the  Bercen  in¬ 
creases,  then  it  might  be  maintained  that  invention  was 
not  required  to  produoe  the  eoreen  of  the  claims  under 
consideration,  but  this  1b  far  from  being  the  pase.  Manu¬ 
facturers  of  screens  for  screening  fine  materials  invar¬ 
iably  used  metal  which  was  thicker  than  the  width  of  the 
orifioes;  or  about  as  thiok  aB  the  punches  were  capable 
of  perforating.  The  reason  for  the  selection  of  such  metal 
was  to  increase  the  durability  of  the  soreen.  If  the  use 
of  metal  of  minimum  thickness  had  occurred  to  the  manu¬ 
facturer,  it  is  quite  likely  that  the  idea  would  have  been 
rejeoted  at  onoe  because  he  would  have  thought  that  the 
life  of  a  screen  of  this  sor.t./ivould  be  so  short  as  to 
make  it  praotioally  worthless.  The  result  was  therefore 
that  the  Boreens  actually  produoed,  although  durable,  were 
very  inefficient;  This  faof  was  recognized  by  hhe  manu¬ 
facturers,  but  was  accepted  as  inevitable,  as  an  objection 
Whioh  neoesearily  aocompanies  the  use  of  fine  screens  but 
for  which  there  was  no  remedy .  ,  Now  although  the  screen 
disclosed  in  the  present  application  is  of  shorter  life 
than  prior  screens  as  compared  with  the  amount  of  material 
whioh  passes  over  it,  it  is  of  longer  life  as  regards  the 
quantity  of  material  that  passes  through  it  in  account  of 
its  far  greater  effioienoy.  This  fact  is  also  a  novel  con¬ 
ception  whioh  manufacturers  had  failed  to  grasp  at  the 
date  of  applicant's  invention.  In  oge  oase  a  user  of  fine 
screening  plates,  noting  the  increased  efficiency  of  the 
plates  used  by  Mr.  Bdison  at  his  separating  plant  at  Bdison 
N.  J. ,  endeavored  to  have  them  duplicated  by  a  manufactur¬ 
er;  but  the  manufacturer  actually  filled  the  order  with 
thiok  plates  of  the  ysual  style  showing  conclusively  that 
he  did  not  gain  a  conception  of  the  invention  even  though 

8. 


an  expert  in  the  manufacture  of  screening  plates  and  even 
though  the  attempt  was  made  to  explain/to  him.  These 
faotB  are  brought  out  by  affidavit b  in  the  appeal  record  of 
the  old  ease  before  the  Commissioner,  but  they  do  not  ap¬ 
pear  to  have  received  sufficient  consideration,  since  they 
are  almost  conclusive  evidenoe  that  invention  is  involved 
in  the  conception  and  redaction  to  practioe  of  the  improved 
soreen,. 

The  seeming  obviousness  of  the  invention  is  due 
entirely  to  its  simplioity.  It  is  an  invention  wherein  the 
inventive  aot  resides  entirely  in  the  conception,  since 
the  reduction  to  practioe  can  be  oarried  out  by  a  person  of 
ordinary  skill.  The  manufacturer  referred  to  as  receiving 
an  order  for,  the  improved  screen  could  have  readily  filled  ’ 
it  if  he  had  obtained  a  conception  of  the  invention, but 
this  he  had  evidently  not  received,  therefore  he  failed 
to  embody  the  invention  in  the  screens  with  which  he  filled 
the  order.  Similarly,  any  person  having  a  oonoeption  of 
the  invention  oould  have  sent  an  order  to  Eraser  &  Chalmers 
and  after  convincing  them  that  it  would  not  be  throwing 
money  away  to  construct  a  screen  of  this  oharaoter  he  would 
undoubtedly  have  been  able  to  procure  one. 

When  an  invention  of  this  simple  oharaoter  is  em¬ 
bodied  in  a  patent  application  a  conception  of  the  inven¬ 
tion  is  had  by  the  Examiner  }.ong  before  he  reaches  the 
claims  annexed  to  the  specification,  and  it  is  natural 
that  the  invention  should  appear  to  him  obvious;  yet  man¬ 
ufacturers  and  users  of  fine  soreens  had  accepted  the  in¬ 
efficiency  of  fine  screens  as  a  disadvantage  which  could 
not  be  remedied.  Hence  It  is  clear  that  the  production  of 
the  improved  soreen  was  not  obviouB ,  and  the  claims  are 

6. 


therefore  believed  to  be  patentable, 


Orange,  N 
December 


Respectfully  submitted, 
THOMAS  A.  EDISON 
By 


Jersey 

1906. 


hiB  Attorney. 


7. 


EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF 


S— SOS. 


T,“  wJIhtaJS™D.  0£.S,“,“'  Department  of  the  Interior, 


aamblinll-05 


Ho  aid,  Aitflunt  20,  1B70,  Ho.  207,170; 

Oaatlor,  .  Uarflh  21,  1002,  Ho.  8Gb, 380; 

liftton,  April  8V,  1020,  Ho.  340,042; 

Borthfllot,  July  26,  1002,  Ho.  470,017; 

Croon,  1.3a;/  2b,.  1007,  Ho;  503,032; 

'Y/orkuhop  Roccipto  for  ’(amifaoturon,  .lie.",  Lock. 


73 :c  adverse  dcciiiion  of  ti.c 


followu: 

"In  view  of  the  fact  that;  thin  application  in  for  the  i- 
danUcul  BubJo.cti.iat  1;or  (ituo  o tat  onion  t  in  the  oath)  of  application 
782,829,  which  application  hfui  boon  finally  rejected  by  all  the 
tribunals  in  the  Patent  Offico,  and  which  application  in  now  aban- 
cloned,  and  in  viev/  of  the  further  fact  that  claims  1,  8  and  3  of 
thin  cane  are  Buh«» antially  the  name  an  claim »  1,  b  and  3,  reap act 


!G,,U'JS 


ivoly,  of  that  application,  it  has  been  hold  that  tho  question  oi' 
patentability  ol’  olaiUf!  having  tho  uoopo  of  tho  claims  in  this  case 
is  ro ii  tid.1udlco.ttt. " 


Claims  1,2  ami  ii  of  thin  cano  appoarv above. 

Claims  1,  !>  and  5  of  a  former  application  rejected  l.y 
thin  board  and  liy  tho  Commissioner  road  a  a  follows: 

"1.  As  a  new  article  of  manufacture,  a  very  thin  metal 
pinto  having  screening  orifices;  therein  of  grantor  width  than  tho 
thickness  of  said  pfeiiAc,  subs  tan  tiully  as  sat  forth. 


"b.  As  a  now  article  of  ismufucturo',  a  very  thin  :.io !.ul 
plate  ha  via.'';  snrcuniiv:  slots  therein  of  grantor  width  than  the 
thielrncss  of  said  pinto,  substantially  as  set  forth." 

"o.  As  a  now  article  of  maiufacture,  n  metal  plate  having 
a  hardened  screening  surface  but  with  u  jaallott.lile  central  portion, 
said  pl.atG  buitig  of  extromo  thinness  and  having  oitlficos  formed 
therein  of  greater  width  than  the  thickness  of  sale  plate,  substan¬ 
tially  as  set  forth." 


Prior  1.o  the  rejection  on  the  above  ground  the  Principal 
?h:ai.iinor  in  his  letter  of  September  h,  190:1,  a  socond  time  rc.iticl.Gd 
those  appealed  claims  on  tho  references  and  reasons  oi’  record . 

S'hosa  references  and  reasons  are  the  some  as  those  on  which  claims  ■ 
1,  S  and  3  of  tho  former  apnjli Ssation  wore  reject  eel.  i’ho  Principal 
SJsaainor  also  added  the  trade  catalogue  of  Pr  attar  and  Chalmers,  for 
1(382,  showing  snreon  plates  having  n  thickness  of  .01  of  an  inch, 
or;  from  TTo.  30  wire  gauge  to  -J-  of  an  inch  to  be  punched  by  t.ho 
manufacturer  with  slots  proportioned  to  tho  Ihioknesa  of  t.'nc  metal 
of  tho  "screen  plates.  Also  screen  plates  are  ah  own  having  much 
greator  width  than  tho  thickness  of  motal,  unci  t.ho  ground  taken  by 
the  thiamin  or  that  the  change  j|f footed  by  the  applicant  wus  one  of 
dogroo  only  in  proportions  of  the  structure  and  involved  no  patent- 
able  novelty.  - 


Sp.;^prA?&^^ee^og^j^-f^^e^^jiid4^ta?  another 


TOUTED  STATES  PATENT  OPPICE. 


THOMAS  A.  EDISON, 
Screening  Platen, 
Piled  August  1,  1903, 
Serial  No.  167,929. 


Orange,  Hew  Jersey, 
November  14,  1906. 


APPEAL 

SIR:  ■ 

I  hereby  appeal  to  the  Honorable  Commissioner 
of  Patents  in  person  from  the  decision  of  the  Examiners- in- 
Chief,  who ,  on  December  7th,  1905,  affirmed -the  decision 
of  the  Primary  Examiner  finally  rejecting  the  claims  thereof, 
and  I  assign  the  following  reasons  of  appeal: 

(1)  The  Examiners- in-Chief  erred  in  holding  the 
claims  res  ad.ludioata . 

(2)  The  Examiners- in- Chief  erred  in  deciding  that 
the  invention  defined  by  the  claims  is  anticipated  by  the 
references  of  record. 

(3)  The  Examiners- in-Chief  erred  in  deciding  that 
the  terms  of  the  claims  are  met  by  the  references  of  record. 

-1- 


(4  The  Examiners-in-Chlef  erred  in  deciding  that 
the  invention  defined  by  the  claims  is  lacking  in  patentable 
novelty. 

(5)  The  Examine™- in-Chief  erred  in  deciding  that 
the  invention  defined  by  the  claims  is  the  result  only  of 
ordinary  meohanical  skill;  and 

|  (0)  The  Examiners- in-Chief  erred  in  not  reversing 

the  decision  of  the  Primary  Examiner. 


An  oral  hearing  is  requested.  The  appeal  fee  of 


820.  is  furnished  herewith. 


Very  respect iUlly, 
THOMAS  A.  EDISON, 
by 


|?o  the 

HONORABLE  COHMISS IOHER  OP  PATENTS, 
Washington,  D.C. 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE, 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 


In  the  matter  of  the 
Application  of 
ThomaB  A.  Edison, 
Screening  Plates : 
Piled  August  1,  1903 
Serial  No.  167,929. 


) 

) 


) 

) 


On  Appeal  to  the  Commii 


Sir: 

You  are  hereby  Informed  that  a  hearing  on  the  above 
appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Examiners -in-Chief ,  has  been  fixed 
for  Wednesday,  December  5,  1906,  at  10  A.  M. 

By  di-  eotion  of  the  Commissioner: 

Very  respectfully, 


^ — 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

o/o  Prank  L.  Dyer, 

Edison  Laboratory, 

Orange,  New  Jersey. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OEEICE. 


Thomas  A.  Edison  ) 

SCREENING  PLATES  ) 

:  ON  APPEAL  TO  THE 
Piled  August  1st,  1903  ) 

:  COMMISSIONER  IN  PERSON. 

Serial  No.  167,929  ) 

BRIBE  POR  APPELLANT. 

STATEMENT  OP  THE  CASE. 

The  invention  of  the  present  case  waB  originally 
set  forth  in  an  application  filed  June  29,  1899,  serial 
No. 722, 229.  The  claims  of  this  early  application  were 
Broader  than  those  of  the  present  oase,  and  the  specifica¬ 
tion  was  in  some  respects  not  so  full  as  in  the  present 
oase,  hut  the  invention  which  the  applicant  has  sought  to 
cover  is  undoubtedly  the  same  in  the  two  oases,  the 
present  oaBe  Being  a  continuation  of  the  early  oase. 

The  olaims  of  the  original  oase  were  finally  re¬ 
jected  By  the  Examiner  and  appealed  successively  to  the 
Board  of  Examiners  in  Chief  and  to  the  Commissioner,  Both 
of  whioh  tribunals  rendered  opinions,  dated  respectively 
MaBoh  16th,  1902  and  May  26th,  1903,  sustaining  the  Examin¬ 
er  and  refusing  the  grant  of  a  patent. 

After  the  rendering  of  the  decision  of  the  Com¬ 
missioner  the  applioant  had  the  right 'of  an  appeal  to  the 
Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia.  Applicant 
felt  however,  that  the  invention  was  not  properly  set  forth 
in  the  specification,  that  is,  the  specification  was  some- 


what  indefinite  and  could  he  amplified  bo  as  to  more  clear¬ 
ly  deBcrihe  the  invention,  and  he  also  believed  that  the 
olaims  were  somewhat  broader  than  the  invention  and  should 
therefore  be  canceled  and  replaoed  by  claims  of  proper 
scope.  The  Patent  Offioe  rules  do  not  allow  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  such  matter  as  applicant  wished  to  introduoej 
neither  do  they  permit  the  substitution  of  alaims  of  dif¬ 
ferent  scope  from  those  upon  whioh  the  appeal  was  taken, 
after  a  decision  by  the  Commissioner,  exoept  in  rare  and 
unusual  oases.  The  present  application  was  therefore 
filed  during  the  pendenoy  of  the  original  application, and 
the  latter  application  (  but  not  the  invention  thereof  ) 
was  abandoned.  This  faot  makes  the  present  case  a  con¬ 
tinuation  of  the  original  case  for  all  matter  therein  dis¬ 
closed  (International  Tooth  Crown  Company  vs.  Richmond  39 
O.G. 1550}  Godfrey  vs.  Eames,  1  Wall.  317}  Smith  vs. 
Goodyear  Company,  93  U.3.  600}  Graham  vs.  Geneva  lake 
Company,  11  Red. 138}  Dederiok  vs.  Pox,  63  O.G.  1963} 
ex  parte  Beggs,  50  O.G.  1130  ) 

The  Primary  Examiner  admitted  that  the  present 
application  is  based  upon  the  same  invention  as  the  origin¬ 
al  case  and  rejected  the  olaims  upon  the  references  cited 
In  the  original  oase,  and  one  additional  reference,  and 
later  took  the  position  that  the  consideration  of  the 
olaims  in  the  present  case  Is  res  ad.1  udicata  in  view  of 
the  prosecution  of  the  early  oase.  The  Examiners  in 
Chief  took  the  same  view  of  the  matter,  and  also  fodnd 
that  the  olaims  do  not  involve  invention  over  the  refer¬ 
ences. 

Upon  the  present  appeal  applicant  respectfully 
submits,  first,  that  consideration  of  the  present  claims 
is  not  res  ad.1  udicata.  and  second,  that  the  olaims  are 
patentable  and  should  be  allowed. 

2. 


CONSIDERATION  OF  THIS  PRESENT  OLAIMS  IS  HOT  RES 

ADJUDIfiATA  . 

The  Examiner  states  that  claims  1,  2  and  3  in 
this  case  are  substantially  the  same  as  olaims  1,  5  and  3 
respectively  of  application  Ho. 722, 729.  TOiile  it  is  true 
that  the  olaims  of  this  ease  are  based  upon  the  identical 
subjeot-matter  of  the  prior  application,  an  inspection  of 
the  olaims  will  show  that  they  are  *jdt  more  limited  than  tin 
claims  in  said  application .  Claim  1  of  the  original  ap¬ 
plication  reads  as  follows 

"As  a  new  article  of  manuf aoture,  a  very 
thin  metal  plate  having  screening  orifices 
therein  of  greater  width  than  the  thickness 
of  said  plate,  substantially  as  set  forth." 

The  present  olaim  1  reads  as  follows 

"As  a  new  article  of  manufacture,  a  soreen 
having  openings  formed  in  a  plate  of  minimum 
thickness,  less  than  the  width  of  said  open¬ 
ings  and  sufficient  only  to  offer  proper  sup¬ 
port  to  the  material  passed  over  the  same, 
substantially  as  and  flor  the  purposes  sat 
forth". 

The  early  olaim  speoifies  merely  a  very  thin 
metal  plate.  The  present  olaim  speoifies  that  the  plate 
must  be  of  minimum  thickness  -  the  leaBt  possible  thick¬ 
ness  consistent  with  the  offering  of  proper  support  to  the 
material  whioh  necessarily  passes  over  the  same  during  the 
screening  operation.  Olaims  2  and  3  are  similarly  limit¬ 
ed  and  differ  from  claims  5  and  3  respectively  of  the  orig¬ 
inal  case  in  the  same  way. 

It  is  believed  that  the  present  olaims  cannot 
properly  be  held  to  be  res  acLIudloata.  because  claims  hav¬ 
ing  this  limitation  were  not  passed  upon  in  the  original 
case  by  the  Examiner  or  either  of  the  appellate  tribunals 
and  as  an  appeal  disposes  of  only  Buoh  matters  as  are  be- 

3. 


fore  the  appellate  tribunals,  it  is  olear  that  there  oould 
have  been  no  adjudication  upon  the  present  claims. 

It  1b  therefore  believed  that  the  patentability 
of  this  oase  should  be  determined  in  the  same  way  aB  an 
original  application,  exoept  that  its  filing  date  should  be 
considered  the  same  as  that  of  the  early  application. 

However,  even  if  the  Commissioner  believes  that 
consideration  of  the  present  claims  is  properly  a  question 
which  is  res  adjudioata.  it  is  within  his  power  to  go  into 
the  merits  of  the  case,  in  order  that  the  whole  matter  may 
be  taken  before  the  Court  of  Appeals.  In  Tay  vs.  Duell, 
Commissioner  of  Patents,  90  O.G.  1167,  1900  C.D.  232,  the 
praotioe  whioh  had  been  followed  by  the  applicant  was  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  as  in  the  present  oase  except  that  the  ap¬ 
plication  was  renewed  "without  substantial  change",  whereas 
in  the  present  case  the  specification  has  been  amplified 
and  the  claims  redrawn  in  more  limited  terms.  However,  in 
the  oase  referred  to,  although  the  Commissioner  held  that 
the  subordinate  tribunals  were  right  in  declaring  the 
question  res  adjudioata.  he  went  into  the  question  of 
patentability  de  novo. in  order  that  upon  appeal  to  the 
Court  of  Appeals,  the, full  oase  might  be  heard. 

THE  CLAIMS  SHOULD  BE  ALLOWED. 

The  present  olaims  read  as  follows: 

"1.  As  a  new  artiols  of  manufacture, a  soreen 
having  openings  formed  in  a  plate  of  minimum  thickness, 
less  than  the  width  of  said  openings  and  sufficient 
only  to  offer  proper  support  to  the  material  passed 
over  the  same, substantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set 
forth. 

2.  As  a  new  artiole  of  manufacture,  a  soreen 
having  slots  formed  in  a  plate  of  minimum  thickness, 
less  than  the  width  of  said  slots. and  sufficient  only 
to  offer  proper  support  to  the  material  passed  over 
the  same,  substantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set 
forth. 

4. 


3,  Ah  a  new  article  of  manufacture,  a  screen  hav¬ 
ing  openings  domed  in  a  plate  of  minimum  thickness, 
leso  in  width  than  said  openings, sufficient  only  to 
offer  proper  support  to  the  material  passed  over  the 
same, and  having  a  oasc-hardened  screening  surfaoe  and 
a  malleable  central  portion, substantially  as  and  for 
the  purposes  set  forth. " 

An  examination  of  the  references  shows  that 
applicant's  invention  is  novel,  Binoe  all  the  references 
which  disclose  screening  plates  having  orifices  of  greater 
width  than  the  thickness  of  the  plate,  are  plateB  whioh 
are  of  greater  thickness  than  1b  necessary  for  properly 
supporting  the  materials  passed  over  the  same.  None  of 
the  references  disclose  a  screening  plate  of  minimum  thick¬ 
ness  or  one  sufficient  only  to  offer  support  to  the  ma¬ 
terial  passed  over  the  same.  The  question  of  patentability 
therefore  resolves  itself  into  the  question  whether  or 
not  thvontlon  was  required  to  conceive  and  produoe  the 
artiole  of  manufacture  claimed.  It  is  admitted  by  ap¬ 
plicant  that  materials  wore  in  existence  at  the  date  of 
his  invention  from  whioh  the  new  screening  plate  oould 
be  manufactured  -  that  is,  he  oould  have  purchased  from 
Fraser  &  Chalmers  and  possibly  from  other  manufacturers 
metal  sheets  or  plates  of  sufficient  thinness  to  be  formed 
into  a  screen  embodying  the  invention.  He  does  not  claim 
to  have  Invented  extremely  thin  sheet  metal  for  this  pur¬ 
pose  nor  punohes  for  forming  the  perforations  in  Bald 
sheets.  The  Fraser  &  Chalmers  catalog  therefore  appears 
to  have  no  bearing  whatever  upon  the  claims  in  this  oaso 
Binoe  it  does  not  describe  screens  of  minimum  thiokness  and 
whioh  1b  less  than  the  width  of  the  screening  orifices.  It 
is  true  of  almost  every  invention  that  materials  are  on  the 
market  from  whioh  it  may  bo  constructed.  The  important 
faot  is,  however,  that  no  ouch  Boreena  as  those  olaimed 
wore  on  the  market,  nor  are  suoh  screens  shown  or  described 
in  any  of  the  references  oited  by  the  Examiner. 

8. 


The  screen  Invented  hy  applicant  accomplishes 
a  new  and  useful  result.  In  enahleB  very  fine  materials 
to  he  screened  in  as  efficient  a  manner  as  coarser  mater¬ 
ials  .  In  all  prior  screening  operations  of  fine  mater¬ 
ials  the  Bcreens  were  of  very  much  less  effioienoy  than 
those  used  for  coarser  materials  and  therefore  it  was  nec¬ 
essary  to  pass  the  material  over  the  screens  again  and 
again,  or  over  a  much  greater  extent  of  screening  surface 
than  with  applicant 'is  improved  screen.  Ho  one  prior  to 
Edison  appears  to  have  known  that  the  efficiency  of  a 
screen  depends  upon  the  relation  between  the  thioknees  of 
the  plate  and  the  width  of  the  openings.  If  it  had  been 
known  that  effioienoy  increases  as  the  ratio  between  the 
width  of  the  opening  and  the  thickness  of  the  screen  in¬ 
creases,  then  it  might  be  maintained  that  invention  was 
not  required  to  produce  the  screen  of  the  olaims  under 
consideration,  but  this  is  far  from  being  the  case.  Manu¬ 
facturers  of  screens  for  screening  fine  materials  invar¬ 
iably  used  metal  which  was  thioker  than  the  width  of  the 
orifioes;  or  about  as  thiok  as  the  punches  were  capable 
of  perforating.  The  reason  for  the  selection  of  suoh  metal 
was  to  increase  the  durability  of  the  soraen.  If  the  use 
of  metal  of  minimum  thickness  had  oocurred  to  the  manu¬ 
facturer,  it  is  quite  likely  that  the  idea  would  have  been 
rejected  at  onoe  because  he  would  have  thought  that  the 
life  of  a  soreen  of  this  sort  would  be  so  short  as  to 
make  it  praotically  worthless.  The  result  was  therefore 
that  the  soreens  aotually  produced,  although  durable, were 
very  inefficient.  This  fact  was  reoognized  by  the  manu¬ 
facturers, but  was  aooepted  as  inevitable. as  an  objection 
whioh  neoessarily  accompanies  the  use  of  fine  Bcreens  but 
for  which  there  was  no  remedy. 


6. 


I2.no  Examiners  in  Chief  stats  that  "prior  to  wiiat  - 
evor  thiB  applicant  has  dons,  soraens  having  slots  of  groat- 
or  width  than  the  thickness  of  the  metal  ware  wall  known." 
'"ha  only  prior  screens  in  which  the  slots  ware  of  greater 
'width  than  the  thickness  of  metal  ware  screens  of  large 
Mooli, whose  apart nr ay  ware  of  very  groat  width  aa  ooapared 
with  those  disclosed  "by  applicant,  and  thickness  of  the 
metal  is  vary  much  greater  than  is  necessary  to  carry  the 
load,  rfaa  prior  art  does  not  show  that  any  fine  screens, 
such  screens  as  could  he  used  for  the  sumo  purposes  as 
applicant's,  were  made  of  metal  thinner  than  the  width  of 
the  apertures, and  of  minimum  thickness  sufficient  only  to 
support  the  load  of  material. 

The  Examiners  in  Chief  also  stated  that  it  was  well 
known  that  "the  slots  must  be  out  with  relation  to  the  thiol 
nesc  of  the  metal  of  the  screens".  They  fail  to  state  what 
this  known  relation  was, but  the  prosecution  of  the  old  case 
wakes  it  clear  that  the  principle  upon  which  screen  makers 
wore  cutting  the  slots  in  metallic  sheets  was  very  differ¬ 
ent  from  the  principle  of  the  present  invention.  From  the 
affidavit  of  Cloyd  H.  Chapman,  filed  at  the  hearing  before 
the  Commissioner,  it  1b  shown  that  "in  the  praotiooi  manu¬ 
facture  of  fine  screening  plates  it  is  not  yet  known  by 
manufacturers  other  than  Mr.  Edison,  that  the  ratio  between 
the  thickness  of  the  plates  au<l  the  width  of  the  slot  has 
anything  to  do  with  the  efficiency  of  the  screen.  It  is 
the  aim,  in  faot,  of  all  manufacturers  of  fine  screening 
plates  to  use  relatively  thick  metal,  apparently  in  order 
to  Becure  the  greatest  durability.  The  thickness  of  metal 
employed  by  other  manufacturers  depends  largely  upon  the 
capaoity  of  the  punches,  it  being  obvious  that  a  very  fins, 
relatively  sharp  punoh  must  be  used  on  thinner  metal  t-ban 
ooarse  punohap ,  and  also  that  slot  punohes  oan  be  used  on 


7. 


coarser  metal  than  round  hole  punches. 

It  is  therefore  perfectly  clear  that  the  principle 
adopted  by  prior  screen  makers  was  to  use  metal  as  thick 
as  the  punohea  were  capable  of  perforating,  while  appli¬ 
cant  ua03  sheets  much  thinner  than  this  -  as  thin  as 
possible,  the  thickness  of  which  is  limited  only  by  its 
ability  to  support  the  load. 

The  Examiners  in  Chief  also  state  that  "  when 
this  applicant  found  that  the  old  style  of  screen  *  *  * 

which  ho  may  have  been  using,  was  clogged  by  the  particular 
material  which  ho  was  screening,  there  ware  obvious  re¬ 
medies  for  the  fault.  one  was  to  make  the  slots  wider." 

It  is  raopeotfully  submitted  that  this  was  no  solution 
whatever  of  the  trouble  because  suoii  change  would  muke  a 
different  screen.  W/ien  a  manuf acturer  wishes  to  use  a  200 
mesh  screen  and  finds  it  clogged  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  a 
100  mesh  screen  would  solve  the  diffioulty,  because  it 
would  not  give  him  the  kind  of  an  article  he  wanted.  It 
would  bo  just  as  absurd  as  fco  offer  a  man  red  paint  when 
he  wants  to  paint  his  house  white. 

The  Examiners  in  Chief  then  go  on  to  statu  that 
thore  is  another  obvious  remedy  -  that  it  would  be  obvious 
that  the  dogging  was  caused  by  friction  between  the  ma¬ 
terial  and  the  walls  of  the  slot,  and  the  remedy  would  be 
obvious,  namely,  to  diminish  the  area  of  the  walls  of  the 
slot,  by  making  the  metal  of  the  Bame  thinner.  This  is 
precisely  what  we  olaim  was  not  obvious.  The  makers  of 
soreens  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  screens  of  fine 
mesh  were  necessarily  inefficient  and  that  there  was  no 
remedy  for  the  dogging  o.f  such  soreens.  It  must  be 
evident  that  if  the  manufacturers  of  screens  had  known 
the  advantages  of  the  present  invention,  they  would  have 
constructed  soreens  of  the  character  set  forth  herein.  The 


fact  that  they  did  not  is  praotieally  conclusive  that  the 
invention  was  not  obvious,  and  it  is  quite  clear  that  no 
such  soreen  has  ever  before  been  produced,;  because  the 
catalogues  of  the  prominent  screen  makers  show  that  in  the 
case  of  screens  of  fine  mesh  the  thickness  of  the  metal  is 
in  every  case  greater  than  the  width  of  the  opening,  and 
that  plates  of  minimum  thickness  with  openings  of  greater 
width  than  the  thiokness  thereof  have  not  been  made.  That 
the  invention  v;as  not  obvious  is  apparent  from  the  follow¬ 
ing  facts  sworn  to  by  Mr.  Edison  in  the  original  applica¬ 
tion: 


"About  the  time  that  the  above  application  was  filed, 
I  used  a  large  number  of  fine  screens  involving  the  in¬ 
vention  here  claimed, at  my  ore  milling  plant  at  Edison, 
H.J.  Very  superior  results  were  secured  with  these 
screens;  in  fact  the  efficiency  was  very  much  higher 
than  with  any  soreens  then  known.  The  Hew  Jersey  Zinc. 
Co.,  had  a  plant  looated  at  Eranklin,  H.J,,a  few  miles 
from  Edison, and  were  using  ordinary  fine  screens  punch¬ 
ed  in  relatively  thiok  plates  but  with  very  poor  re¬ 
sults.  Officers  of  the  Hew  Jersey  Zinc  Co.  frequently 
complained  to  me  of  the  poor  efficiency  of  their  screens 
and  were  always  surprised  to  hear  of  the  high  offio- 
ienoies  which  I  was  seouring.  I  finally  loaned  the  Hew 
Jersey  Zinc  Co., a  set  of  my  screens, and  told  them  to  have 
the  soreens  reproduced.  Either  on  the  instructions  of 
the  Zinc  Co., or  on  the  manufacturers 'judgement, the  re¬ 
produced  soreenB  made  for  the  oompany  were  constructed 
of  considerably  thioker  metal  than  the  set  which  X  loaner 
the  oompany, so  that  when  installed  they  were  as  ineffi¬ 
cient  as  those  previously  used,  neither  the  Zino  Co., 
nor  the  manufacturer  of  their  soreens  oould  explain  the 
loss  in  effioienoy,  and  finally  attributed  the  loss  to 
differences  in  material,  and  in  conditions  of  operation. 
It  was  not  until  X  examined  the  screens  thus  installed 
by  the  Zino  Co., that  X  saw  what  the  trouble  was". 


The  seeming  obviousness  of  the  Invention  is  due  en¬ 
tirely  to  its  simplicity.  It  is  an  invention  wherein  the 
inventive  aot  resides  entirely  in  ttie  conception,  Binoe 
the  reduction  to  praotioe  can  be  carried  out  by  a  person  of 
ordinary  skill. 

The  userand  manufacturer  referred  to  oould  of 
course  have  readily  constructed  the  improved  screens  if 
they  had  obtained  a  conception  of  the  invention,  but  as 

9. 


they  had  not  they  failed  to  embody  the  invention  in  the 
screens  v/hioh  v/ore  actually  constructed. 

Similarly,  any  person  having  a  conception  of  the 
invention  could  hewe  sent  an  order  to  Fraser  &  Chalmers, 
and  after  convincing  them  that  he  was  in  earnest  in  desir¬ 
ing  to  obtain  a  soroen  of  minimum  thioknesa  thoy  would  un¬ 
doubtedly  have  been  able  to  oonstruot  one  for  him,  but  it 
is  quite  evident  from  the  references  oited  that  no  one 
ever  did  obtain  this  conception  prior  to  EdlBon,  and  the 
conclusion  is  therefore  irrestible  that  it  was  not  an 
obvious  one. 

It  is  therefore  rospeotfully  submitted  that  the 
claims  in  this  application  should  bo  allowed. 

THOMAS  A.  XDISOff 

By _ - 

His  Attorney 

Orango,  New  Jersey 
December  1906. 


w.l.k. 


Deck’s,  1900. 

j,W 

,  A  "  /' 


United  States  Patent  Offioe. 


Ex  parte  Thomas  A.  Edison. 


Screening  Plates. 


Appeal  from  Examlners-in-Chief . 


Application  filed  August  1,  1903,  Ho.  167,929. 

Mr.  Prank  L.  Byer  for  applloant. 


This  io  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  examiners- in- 
Ohief  affirming  the  rejection  hy  the  primary  examiner  of  the  follow¬ 
ing  claims: 


"1.  As  a  new  article  of  manufacture,  a  Boreen  having  open¬ 
ings  formed  in  a  plate  of  minimum  thickness,  less  than  the  width 
of  said  openings  and  sufficient  only  to  offer  proper  support  to 
tho  material  passed  over  the  same,  substantially  as  and  for  the 
purposes  set  forth. 

"2.  As  a  new  artiole  of  manufacture,  a  soreen  having  slots 
formed  in  a  plate  of  minimum  thickness,  less  than  the  width  of 
said  Blots,  and  sufficient  only  to  offer  proper  support  to  the 
material  passed  over  the  same,  substantially  us  and  for  the 
purposes  Bet  forth. 

"3.  As  a  new  article  of  manufacture,  a  screen  having  open¬ 
ings  formed  in  a  plate  of  minimum  thickness,  lose  in  width  than 
said  openings,  sufficient  only  to  offer  proper  support  to  the 
material  passed  over  the  same,  and  having  a  caso-hardoned  screen¬ 
ing  surface  and  a  malleable  oontral  portion,  substantially  as  and 
for  tho  purposes  set  forth." 

The  references  are  - 


Heald,  August  20,  1876,  Mo.  207,178; 

Oastler ,  March  ’21,  1882,  Mo.  258,325; 

Bates,  April  27,  1886,  Ho.  340,842; 

Bertholet ,  July  26,  1892,  No.  479,617; 

Cross,  Kay  25,  1897,  Ho.  583,032; 

"Workshop  Receipts  for  Manufactures,  eto.,"  Lock; 

"Trade  Catalogue"  of  Eraser  &  ChalmerB  for  1892,  f iled  tc  f? 

16.  1893.  neces  R.  9.  oo  o*  ■ 


Ootobor  16,  1893,  pages  5,  9,  22  and  • 


The  subject-matter  of  this  application  is  the  same  as  that 
presented  hy  the  applicant  in  an  earlier  application,  No.  722,229, 
filed  June  29,  1399.  The  reoord  of  this  earlier  application  shows 
that  the  rejection  hy  the  primary  examiner  of  the  claims  presented 
therein  waB  affirmed  on  appeal  hy  the  examiners-in-chief  and  hy  the 
Commissioner.  No  appeal  was  taken  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the 
District  of  Columbia,  and  after  the  filing  of  the  present,  application 
the  earlier  case  became  abandoned. 

The  primary  examiner  and  the  examiner e-in-ohief  concurred 
in  finding  that  the  appealed  claims  are  the  same  in  scope  as  some  of 
the  rejected  olaims  of  the  earlier  application  and  that,  the  question 
of  patentability  with  respeot  to  these  claims  is  res  adjudioata. 

They,  however,  considered  the  merits  of  the  claims  in  view  of  the 
prior  art  and  held  that  they  were  not  patentable  over  the  references. 
In  my  opinion  their  conclusions  as  to  each  ground  of  rejection  are 
correct . 

Claims  1,  2  and  3  which  are  now  presented,  differ  from 
olaims  1,  5  and  3,  respectively,  of  the  oarlior  application  in  phrase¬ 
ology  rather  than  in  meaning.  The  gist  of  the  supposed  invention  is 
alleged  to  consist  in  making  a  case  hardened  screen  of  the  minimum 
thickness  required  to  support  the  material  passing  over  it,  with  per¬ 
forations  or  slots  having  a  width  greater  than  the  thickness  of  the 
screen. 

In  the  present  claims  the  ratio  of  the  width  of  openings 
to  the  thickness  of  the  screen  is  referred  to  as  "openings  formed  in 
a  plate  of  minimum  thickness,  less  than  the  width  of  said  openings." 

In  the  earlier  case  it  was  stated  as  "a  very  thin  metal  plate  having 
screening  orifices  therein  of  greater  width  than  the  thickness  of  the 


3 

plate."  The  applicant  contends  that  the  present  claims  by  being 
limited  to  a  Boreen  having  "a  minimum  thicknes  -  the  least  possible 
thickness  consistent  with  the  offering  of  a  proper  support  to  the 
“Serial,"  differ  in  soope  from  the  claims  of  the  earlier  application 
and  that  the  rejection  as  res  adjudioata  is  improper.  This  conten¬ 
tion  is  not  well  founded.  In  the  earlier  case  the  same  arguments 
were  advunced  in  distinguishing  the  claims  from  the  prior  art  aB  those 
whioh  are  now  urged  as  distinguishing  the  present  from  the  former 
claims.  In  my  decision  in  that  caBe  it  is  stated  that  - 

"The  applicant  contends  that  in  hlB  invention  tho  width  of 
the  openings  in  the  plate  has  a  ratio  to  the  thickness  of  the 
plate,  but  that  the  plate  must  be  as  thin  as  possible,  its 
thickness  being  limited  only  by  its  capacity  to  support  the 
material  being  screened.  These  alleged  differences  are  ones 
of  degree  merely,  and  do  not  amount  to  invention." 

The  contentions  advanced  and  matters  considered  in  the  earlier  cnso 
were  the  same  as  those  now  advanced  for  consideration  in  this  case 
and  the  final  determination  of  the  earlier  case  is  clearly  res  ad- 
judloata  as  to  this  one. 

Considering  the  merits  of  the  claim,  however,  the  question 
presented  is  whether  a  oase  hardened  screen  of  minimum  thiokness, 
having  slots  wider  than  the  thiokness  ‘of  tho  screen  is  patentable  over 
the  references. 

Applicant  admits  that  oase  hardened  screen  plates  are  old. 

The  patents  of  record  show  screens  made  of  sheet  metal  in  whioh  the 
width  of  the  openings  is  greater  than  the  thickness  of  the  plate. 

The  trade  catalogue  of  Fraser  S :  Chalmers  shows  screen  plates  having 
^thicknesses  from  one-hundredth  of  an  lnoh  to  one-half  of  an  inch, 
which  are  provided  with  slots  proportioned  to  the  thickness  of  the 
metal.  In  view  of  this  state  of  the  art,  it  does  not  appear  that 
applicant  did  anything  more  than  to  apply  to  a  thin  screen  a  con- 


4 


struct  ion  which  was  old  for  the  same  purpose  in  a  thick  screen,  this 
change  wsh  one  of  degree  which  did  not  involve  invention. 

The  decision  of  the  examiners-in-chief  1b  affirmed. 


~  -  *  . 

Commiesionor* 


February  28,  1907. 


February  28,  1907. 


E.K.O. 

UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE, 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 


In  the  matter  of  the  ) 

Application  of  ) 

Thomas  A.  Edison,  )  On  Appeal  to  the  Commissioner. 

Screening  Plates;  ) 

Filed  August  1,  1903,  ) 

Serial  No.  167,929.  ) 


Sir: 


You  are  hereby  informed  that  the  decision  of  the  F,xam- 
iners-in-Chief  has  been  affirmed  by  the  Commissioner.  Please 
find  enclosed  herewith  a  copy  of  the  deoision. 

By  direction  of  the  Commissioner: 

■  Very  respectfully, 


ThomaB  A.  Edison, 

o/o  Frank  E.  Dyer, 

Edison  laboratory, 
Orange ,  N .  J. 


IN  HIE  UNI TED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE. 


I  Serial  Mo.  187,929 
Filed.  August  1,  1903 
Improvements  in  Screening  Plates. 


J  TO  THE  COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS , 

SIS  :  — 

You  are  hereby 

I  notified  of  my  appeal  to  the  Court  of  AppealB  of  the 
District  of  Columbia  from  your  decision  rendered  on  or  about 
the  28th  day  of  February,  1907,  rejecting  my  abovo  en¬ 
titled  application  and  refusing  me  a  patent  for  the  inven- 
I  tion  set  forth  therein.  The  following  are  assigned  as 
-easons  of  appeal: 

1.  The  Commissioner  ef  Patents  erred  in  holding 
j  that  the  appealed  claims  1,  2  and  3  are  the  same  in  scope 
i  claims  1,  5  and  3  respectively  of  applicant's  earlier 
|  application,  serial  No. 722, 229,  filed  June  29th,  1899. 

2.  The  Commissioner  of  Patents  erred  in  holding 

I  that  the  question  of  patentability  of  the  claims  of  the 
present  case  is  res  adjudioata. 

3.  The  Commissioner  of  Patents  erred  in  holding 

I  that  the  subject  matter  of  the  olaima  bf  the  present  appli¬ 
cation  is  anticipated  by  the  references  oit.ed  during  the 


1. 


prosecution 


the  application. 


4.  The  Corani  si)  loner  of  Patents  orred  in  holding 

I  that  the  suh.loct  matter  of  the  elates  of  the  present  appli¬ 
cation  does  not  involve  invention  over  the  disclosures 
I  of  the  references  cited  in  the  said  application. 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON 


!  Orange,  Hew  Jersey 
March  20,  1007. 


COURT  OR  APPEARS 
DISTRICT  OP  COLUMBIA 


PATENT  APPEAL 

NO. _ 

In  re:  application  of 
THOMAS  A.  EDISON 

Serial  No.  167,929 
Piled  Aug . 1 ,  1903 

Improvements  in  Screening 
Plates. 


-  PETITION  POR  APPEAL 


IN  THE  COURT  OF  APPEALS  OP  THE  DISTRICT  OP  COLUMBIA - 


In  re:  Application  of 
Thomas  A.  Edison 

Serial  No.  107,929 
Piled  August  1,  1903 

Improvements  in  Screening 
Plates. 


> 

| 

j 

j 

j 


TO  THE  COURT  OP  APPEAXS  OP  THE  DISTRICT  OP  COLUMBIA; 


Your  petitioner,  Thomas  A.  Edison,  of 
Llewellyn  Park,  Orange,  in  the  County  of  Essex  and  State 
of  New  Jersey,  respeotfully  represents: 

That  he  is  the  original  and  first  inventor  of 
certain  new  and  useful  improvements  in  screening  plate*; 

That  on  the  29th  day  of  June,  1899,  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  law,  he  presented  his  application  to 
the  Patent  Office,  praying  that  a  patent  be  issued  to  him 
for  the  said  invention; 

That  such  proceedings  were  had  in  said  Offioe 
upon  said  application:  that  on  the  26th  day  of  May,  1903 

it  was  rejected  by  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  and  a  patent 
for  saidv  invention  v/as  refused  him; 

That  thereupon  and  while  the  said  application 
was  still  pending  before  the  Patent  Offioe,  to  wit,  on 
the  first  day  of  August,  1903,  in  the  manner  prescribed  by 
law,  your  petitioner  presented  a  second  application  to  the 
Patent  Offioe  upon  the  same  invention  as  the  original  appli¬ 
cation  but  with  an  amplified  specification  and  more  limited 
olaims,  and  prayed  that  a  patent  be  issued  to  him  for  the 
Baid  invention; 


That  suoh  proceedings  were  had  in  said  Office 
upon  said  second  application,  that  on  the  28th  day  of 
February,  1007  At  was  rejected  by  the  Commissioner  of 
Patents  and  a  patent  for  said  invention  was  refused  him; 

That  on  the  26th  day  of  March,  1907,  your 
petitioner,  pursuant  to  sections  4912  and  4913,  Rev.Stat., 
United  States,  gave  notice  to  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  oi 
his  appeal  to  this  honorable  oourt  from  his  refusal  to 
issue  a  patent  to  him  for  said  invention  upon  Baid  applica¬ 
tion  as  aforesaid,  and  filed  with  him  in  writing  tke 
following  reasons  of  appeal: 

1.  The  Commissioner  of  Patents  erred  in  holding 
that  the  appealed  claims  1,  2  and  3  are  the  same  in  scope 
as  claims  1,  5  and  3  respectively  of  applicant's  earlier 

I  application,  serial  Ho.  722,229,  filed  June  29th,  1899. 

2.  The  Commissioner  of  Patents  erred  in  holding 
that  the  question  of  patentability  of  the  claims  of  the 
present  co.se  is  res  adjudicata. 

i  3,  The  Commissioner  of  Patents  erred  in  holding 

that  the  subject  matter  of  the  claims  of  the  present  applic¬ 
ation  is  anticipated  by  the  references  cited  during  the 
prosecution  of  the  application. 

4.  The  Commissi  oner  of  Patents  erred  in  holding 
that  the  subject  matter  of  the  olaims  of  the  present  appli¬ 
cation  floes  not  involve  invention  over  the  disclosures  of 
the  references  cited  in  the  said  application. 

That  the  Commissioner  of  patents  lias  furnish¬ 
ed  him  a  certified  transoript  of  the  record  and  proceedings 
relating  to  said  application  for  patent,  which  transcript 
is  filed  herewith  and  is  to  be  deemed  and  taken  as  a  part 
2. 


hereof. 

Wherefore  your  petitioner  prays  that  hie  eaid  ap¬ 
peal  may  he  heard  upon  and  for  the  reasons  assigned  there¬ 
for  to  the  Commissioner  as  aforesaid,  and  that  said  appeal 
may  be  determined  and  the  decision  of  the  Commissioner  he 
revised  and  reversed,  that  justice  may  he  done  in  the  pre¬ 
mises. 


Thomas  A.  Edison 


Orange,  Hew  Jersey 

.■.April  16th,  1907. 


COPY 

PAWI  APPEAL  DOCKET 
CASE  1T0  433. 

COURT  OE  APPEALS  OE  THE  DISTRICT  OE  COLUMBIA. 

April  Term,  1907 


In  the  matter  of  the  application 
cf  " 

Thomas' A.  Edison 

The  Clerk  will  enter  my  appearance  as  Counsel  for  the  Appellant. 
11 (Name-)  Frank  L.  Dyer 
(  P.O. Address)  Orange,  H.J. 

Note:  Must  he  signed  by  a  member  of  the  Bar  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia.  Individual  and  not  firm 
names  must  be  signed. 


.9— 082. 


Department  of  tee  Interior, 


Washington,  1).  ~ . May..l., . ,  190. .3 

IN  RE  APPEAL  OF 


.HiomaB-A.-SdiS-Qn. 


Patent  Appeals 
Ho . . 433.  . . 


Sir  : 

Ton  are  hereby  notified,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  section  4-9 IS, 
R.  S.  U.  S.,  and  section  9  of  the  act  to  establish  a  Coart  of  Appeals  for  the  District 
of  Columbia,  that  the  Court  of  Appeals  will  sit  at  the  court  room  in  the  City 

Hall  building,  Washington,  D.  C.,  on  the  second  Tuesday  of. . Jfay . 

( . .T.ue.ad  ay.  r .  .Hay. .  1.4  r . . . ,  190..%),  to  hear  the  appeal  in  the  matter 

of . the.  applicM.ion..of  .TMmaa.AA..Mi8on . . 

Invention: . -Soraenlng..;i?.lataa . . 

Docket  Humber  ( Patent  Appeals). . 43.3... . Serial  Humber . I.?.?.*?.?.?. 

.  >  .  Commissioner  of  Patents. 

To . .Thomas..  A....]5.dlB_oii » . : . 

o/o  Frank  L.  Byer, 

Edison  Laboratory, 

Orange,  N.  J. 


IN  THE  COURT  OF  APPEARS  OF  THE 
DISTRICT  OP  COLUMBIA. 

In  re:  Application  of)  Patent  Appeal 
Thomas  A.  Edison  j  Ho.  433 


STIPULATION 


It  is  hereby  stipulated  and  agreed  by  and 
between  Prank  L.  Dyer,  Attorney  for  the  appellant  herein, 
and  Fairfax  Byard,  Attorney  for  the  Commissioner  of 
Patents,  that  the  hearing  of  this  appeal  be  postponed, 
until  10  O'clock  A.M.,  Tuesday,  June  4,  1907,  or  as 
soon  thereafter  as  counsel  can  be  heard. 


Washington,  I).  C., . .0o.t.aber...29., .  190 _ 

IN  RE  APPEAL  OF 

. Thomas-~A,  .Edison- . ) 

I  Patent  Appeals 

. .  . : . j  No . 433  . . 

Sir  : 

You  are  hereby  notified,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  section  If  9 13, 
R.  S.  U.  S.,  and  section  9  of  the  act  to  establish  a  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  District 
of  Columbia,  that  the  Court  of  Appeals  will  sit  at  the  court  room  in  the  City 

Hall  building,  Washington,  D.  C.,  on  the  second  Tuesday  o/— -November . 

(• . Tuesday-, -November . ,  190.!}.),  to  hear  the  appeal  in  the  matter 

of _ the  appllnaf.  ton  nf*  Thmnan  At  TMiann 


Invention:.. . Soreend-ng-KLates- 


Commissioner  of  Patents. 


To . Thomas.  A...Ed.laon., . 

o/o  IVank  L .  Iyer, 

Kdis on  Laboratory, 

Orange,  N.  J. 


2-082. 


Department  of  the  Interior, 


Washington,  D.  C. 


IN  RE  APPEAL  OF 

•Th-om'«B-A--."-®cTlS6n'' 

. ^ . . . I  No... 


Patent  Appeals 


433 


Sir  : 

You  are  hereby  notified,  in  accordance  ivith  the  provisions  of  section  4918, 
JR.  S.  V.  S.,  and  section  9  of  the  act  to  establish  a  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  District 
of  Columbia,  that  the  Court  of  Appeals  will  sit  at  the  court  room  in  the  City 

Hall  building,  Washington,  D.  C.,  on  the  second  Tuesday  o/.—.Janiary- . 

( . -T-ueadfty-,-— Ja-nufiry-1-5-,— 1-908--;  1 90....),  to  hear  the  appeal  in  the  matter 

°f . -the-  Tcirp-l"rr-st-±orr;-of"ThOTiia8— A-;— Bd-i-Bon . . 

Invention . ■Set(ie'fiin‘g""Prat;eB . . . . 

Docket  Number  ( Patent  Appeals). . .4.5.5 . Serial  Number . 


To . Thoma-.A.—Ediaon- . 

. 0/o  Prank  Barer. 

Edison  Laboratory, 

Orange ,  N.  J. 

^  188WblmB-01 


COPY 


In  the  Court  of  'Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia 

In  the  Matter  of  the  Application  ) 

of  )  Patent  Appeal  Ho. 433. 

Thomas  A.  Edison  ) 


It  is  hereby  stipulated  and  agreed  by  and  between  Prank  L. 
Dyer , attorney  for  the  appellant  herein,  and  Fairfax  Bayard, 
attorney  for  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  that  certified  copies  of 
"pages  13  and  34  from  Catalogue  Ho. 7  of  February  1902, filed  as 
Exhibit  A, May  5,1903,  in  the  Matter  of  abandoned  application  of 
Thomas  A.  Edison, filed  June  29,1899,  Serial  Ho. 722229,  for 
Improvement  in  Fine  Screening  Plates  and  Process  o'f  Making  same," 
together  with  a  certified  copy"from  the  bound  volumes  of  the 
library  of  Patent  Office  of  an  extract  from  pages  274  and  280  of 
"Workshop  Receipts ', Third  Series .London  1884";  and  a  certified 
copy"from  the  bound  volumes  of  the  library  of  the  Patent  Office  of 
pages  5  and  9  of  'Fraser  and  Chalmers  Catalogue 1 , Chica&o  and 
London, 1892, also  tracing  of  plats  288  and  289  in  said  book", 
form  a  part  of  the  transcript  of  the  record  from  the  Patent  Office 
in  said  cause  and  be  printed  by  the  Clerk  as  such. 

Frank  L.  Dyer 

Attorney  for  Appellant 
\f~  {hauLf 

Attorney  for  Commissioner  of 
Patents. 


PERFORATED  METALS 
CATALOGUE  No.  7 

ALLIS-CHALMERS  CO.  Pages  13  and  34. 


NEEDLE -SLOT  SCREENS 


The  following  table  of  Needle-Slot  Screens  for  use  in 
Stamp  Batteries  or  other  similar  work  covers  every  size  likely 
to  he  required;  and,  being  standard,  orders  can  be  placed  by 
giving  numb er  only. 

Battery  Screens  are  a  specialty  with  us,  our  shops  beifig 
equipped  with  a  very  complete  set  of  dies  and  punches  covering 
all  sizes  of  perforations  from  60  mesh  up  to  any  required  width, 
with  spacing  to  correspond.  We  make  these  screens  either  of 
genuine  Russia  iron,  or  of  the  best  quality  cold  rolled  homo¬ 
geneous  steel. 


Table 

for  Punching  Needle-Slot 

Screens 

No. 

Mesh. 

Width 

Birmingham  Decimal  of 

Weight 

of 

Slot, 

Gauge  Steel. 

an  Inch. 

per 

Square  Foot, 

1 

12 

.058 

16 

.065 

2.642 

2 

14 

.049 

16 

.065 

2.642 

3 

16 

.042 

18 

.049 

1.992 

4 

18 

.035 

18 

.049 

1.992 

5 

20 

.029 

20 

.035 

1.423 

6 

25 

.027 

20 

.035 

1.423 

7 

30 

.024 

20 

.035 

1.423 

8 

35 

.022 

20 

.035 

1.423 

9 

40 

.020 

22 

.028 

1.138 

10 

50 

.018 

23 

.025 

1.016 

11 

55 

.0165 

23 

.025 

1.016 

12 

60 

.015 

24 

.022 

.894 

13 

70 

.0135 

24 

.022 

.894 

NOTE.--  The 

slots 

are  usually  15-32 

inch  long, 

and  orders 

will  be  filled  with  screens  having  slots  of  that  length,  run¬ 


ning  diagonally,  unless  otherwise  specified.  We  are  prepared, 
however,  to  furnish  screens  with  slots  running  either  lengthwise 
or  crosswise  of  sheet,  with  openings  of  .uniform  lengths  as 


follows:  15-32,  5/8  and  3/4  inch  of  specified  widths .  Slots 
arranged  in  parallel  rows  or  "staggered."  We  can  vary  these 
spaces  between  slots  up  to  certain  limits.  Where  parties  do 
not  specify  Russia  iron,  we  always  furnish  our  Special  Steel 
Screens,  which . customers  find  are  more  durable  than  Russia  iron, 
can  be  made  somewhat  heavier,  and  are  therefore  stiffer  and 
better  screens  .  We  would  recommend  ordering  these  screens  in¬ 
stead  of  screens  made  from  Russia  iron. 


WORKSHOP  RSCjSIPTS.  (Third  Series.)  By  C.  G.  Warnford  Lock, 
London,  1884, 

EXTRACTS  . 

Page  274’. 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

Since  the  hardening  of  steel  consists  of  first  heating  and 
then  rapidly  extracting  the  heat,  it  follows  that  this  latter 
part  of  the  process  may  he  performed  otherwise  than  hy  the  use  of 
water  --  such,  for  example,  as  hy  placing  the  article  in  a  cur¬ 
rent  of  cold  air,  or,  if  it  is  thin,  hy  placing  it  between  2  cold 
iron  plates,  x  x  x  x  x  x 

Page  280. 

xx  xxx 

Case-hardening  Wrought-iron. — (l)  Wrought-iron  is  nearly 
pure  decarbonized  iron,  and  is  not  possessed  of  the  property  of 
hardening.  But  articles  made  of  wrought-iron  may  he  exteriorly 
converted  into  steel,  and  afterwards  hardened.  The  process  is  call¬ 
ed  case-hardening,  and  only  differs  from  cementation  in  being 
carried  on  f,or  a  shorter  time;  it  is  seldom  necessary  to  convert 
the  iron  into  steel  more  than  l/l6.  in,  deep,  unless  where  great 
stiffness  as  well  as  hardness  is  required.  Case-hardened  iron, 
for  various  purposes,  is  better  than  steel;  it  has  the  hardness 
and  polish  of  steel  externally,  with  a  core  of  soft  fibrous  iron 
in  the  centre.  Prussiate  of  potash  renders  iron  nearly  as  hard  as 
steel,  by  heating  the  iron  to  redness,  sprinkling  the  potash  finely 
powdered  upon  it,  and  then  plunging  the  iron  into  pure  cold  water; 
but  the  hardness  is  confined  to  the  surface,  and  only  for  articles 
not  exposed  to  much  wear  can  a  sufficient  coating  of  steel  be  ob¬ 
tained  by  this  process.  xxx  x 


WORKSHOP  RECEIPTS 


Page  274 

Since  the  hardening  of  steel  consists  of  first  heating 
and  then  rapidly  extracting  the  heat,  it  follows  that  this  latter 
part  of  the  process  may  "be  performed  otherwise  than  by  the  use 
of  water  -  such,  for  example,  as  by  placing  the  article  in  a  cur¬ 
rent  of  cold  air,  or  if  it  is  thin,  by  placing  it  between  2  cold 
iron  plates.  In  these  processes,  however,  the  heat  is  not  extract¬ 
ed  quickly  enough  to  give  a  great  degree  of  hardness. 

Case  hardened  iron,  for  various  purposes,  i£  better 
than  steel*  it  has  the  hardness  and  jl  polish  of  steel  externally, 
with  a  cone  of  soft  fibrous  iron  in  the  centre.  Prussiate  of 
potash  renders  iron  nearly  as  hard  as  steel  by  heating  the  iron  to 
redness,  sprinkling  the  potash  finely  powdered  upon  it,  and  then 
plunging  the  iron  into  pure  cold  water;  but  the  hardness  is  con¬ 
fined  to  the  surface,  and  only  for  articles  not  exposed  to  much 
wear  1 tan  a  sufficient  coating  of  steel  be  obtained  by  this  process!  • 


PRASjSR  &  CHAIMRS  CATALOGUE, 

Chicago,  Ill.  1898. 

EXTRACTS. 

TO  THE  TRADE: 

In  presenting  the  second  edition  of  our  No.  7  Catalogue 
to  our  friends  and  the  public,  we  would  say  that  we  have  antici¬ 
pated  the  increasing  demand  for  perforated  metals  by  providing 
ourselves  with  the  latest  improved  machinery,  and  now  consider 
that  we  are  able  to  meet  all  demands  for  these  goods  in  a  prompt 
and  satisfactory  manner. 

Perforated  metals  are  far  superior  to  wire  cloth,  being 
much  stronger,  more  uniform  in  size  of  hole  or  mesh,  and  less  lia¬ 
ble  to  tear  or  rust  out.  In  case  of  breaking  they  are  easily  re¬ 
paired  without  affecting  the  entire  sheet,  while  in  the  case  of 
wire  cloth  a  break  extends  over  the  whole  sheet,  changing  the  mesh, 
and  making  it  unfit  for  use.  It  is  often  desirable  to  arrange 
screens  with  certain  portions  blank.  This  can  easily  be  done 
when  perforated  metals  are  used,  but  is  of  course  impossible  with 
wire  cloth. 

Unlike  wire  cloth,  perforated  metal  presents  a  perfectly 

>• 

smooth  surface,  allowing  the  grain,  ore,  or  other  material  to  pass 
over  it  smoothly  and  quickly.  It  is  not  as  liable  to  become 
clogged,  making  it  much  more  satisfactory  for  sizing,  cleaning  and 
separating. 

We  roll  plates  to  exact  diameter  of  cylinder,  and  make 
cylinders  to  order.  Revolving  screens  for  stone,  grain,  coal,  ore, 
etc.,  finished  complete  with  one  or  more  sizes  of  perforations  as 
desired,  and  so  constructed  as  to  be  easily  changed,  and  plates 
with  different-sized  perforations  substituted  when  necessary.  De¬ 
signs  of  screens  in  perforated  metal  and  wire  cloth  are  shown  on 
pages  30  to  33.  Screens  of  these  and  other  designs  furnished  on 


-1- 


short  notice  at  reasonable  prices,  complete  with  any  specified 
provision  of  gearing,  pulleys  and  boxes. 

The  illustrations  of  perforated  plates  in  this  catalogue 
show  exact  size  and  style  of  perforations,  and  parties  ordering 
from  the  cuts  can  rely  upon  getting  their  orders  filled  exactly 
as  shown. 

We  furnish  this  work  in  iron,  copper,  brass,  steel, 
zinc,'  tin  and  other  metals,  any  thickness  from  No.  30  wire  gauge 
to- l/2  inch,  with  size  of  perforations  proportioned  to  thickness 
of  metal,  and  spaced,  if  wanted,  as  close  a3  the  thickness  of  metal 
will  permit. 

We  give  on  page  10  a  table  of  standard  sizes  of  steel 
plates  usually  carried  in  stock,  and  call  the  attention  of  our 
customers  to  the  fact  that  orders  for  perforated  plates  conform¬ 
ing  to  these  sizes  and  weights  can  be  filled  much  more  promptly 
and  at  less  cost  than  orders  for  odd  sizes,  requiring  special 
plates  to  be  obtained  from  the  mill. 

We  invite  correspondence  from  parties  v/ho  may  have  any 
use  for  perforated  metal,  and  assure  them  of  the  lowest  quotations 
of  prices,  and  the  unexcelled  quality  of  our  goods. 

Very  respectfully, 

S’RAS.SR  &  CHAIA13RS . 


TAB  IE  FOR  PUNCHING  STEEL  PLATES 


This  table  gives  the  greatest.-1  thicknesses  of  steel  in  which 
it  is  advisable  to  punch  round  or  square  holes  of  given  dia¬ 
meters  or  sizes.  Spacing,  strain  upon  the  plate,  wear  of  dies 
and  othei]cons  iderations  determine  what  is  advisable.  While  the 
table  is  offered  as  aJconvenient  guide  in  ordering , thinner  plates 
will  generally  answer  every  requirement,  and  cost  less. 


DIAMETER  OF  HOLE. 


BIRMINGHAM  GAUGE. 


Millimeters. 


Inches . 


Decimals  of 
an  Inch. 


No. 


Thickness 
in  Inches. 


Weight  per 
Square  Foot. 


3/4 


1  1/4 
1  l/2 


i/4 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 


8 

9 

10' 

11 

12' 

is' 

14 

15 


19- 


3/64 

i/ie 

5/64 

3/32 

i/8 

9/64 
3  >16 

1/4 

9  >32 
5/16 

3>8 

i/ie 

i/2 


19>32 

5/8 

‘3/4 


.02952 

.03937 

.04687 

.04921 

.05906 

.06250 

.07812 

.07874 

.08858 

.09375 

.09843 

.11811 

.125 

.12795 

.1378 

.14062 

.15748 

.1771a 

.18750 

.19685 

.21654 

.23622 

.25 

.25591 

.27559 

.28125 

.3125 

.31496 

.35433 

;375 

.3937 

.43307 

.4375 

.47244 

.5  . 

-.51181 

.55118 

.59055 

.59375 

.625 

. 74803 

.75 


.018 

.022 

.028 

.035 

.049 

.049 

.065 

.065 

.065 

.065 

.065 

.083 

.083 


.109 

.109 

.109 

.134 

.134 

.134 

.134 

.134 

.165 

.165 

.187 

.187 

.187 

.187 

.187 

.187 


.731 

.894 

1.138 

1.423 

1.992 

1.992 

2.642 

2.642 

2.642 

2.642 

2.642 

3.374 

3.374 

3.374 

4.431 

4.431 

4.431 

5.448 

5.448 

5.448 

5.448 

5.448 


6.708 

7.622 

7.622 

7.622 

7.622 


7.622 

10.163 

10.163 

10.163 

10.163 

10.163 

10.163 

10.163 

10.163 

10.163 

10.163 

10.163 

10.163 


22  ...  .86614  l/4  .25  10.163 

...  7/8  .875  1/4  .25  10.163 

25  ...  .98425  l/4  .25  10.163 

...  1  .  5/16  .312  12.703 


Ill 


TABLiS  FOR  DIFFjSRjJNT  STANDARDS  FOR  WIRd  GUAOS  IN  USB  IN 
THjS  UNITiD  STATES. 

Dimensions  of  Sizes,  in  Decimal  Farts  of  an  IncJi. 


OOOOOO  :  .  :  . 

00000  :  .  :  . 

0000  :  .46  :  .454 

000  :  .40964  :  .425 

00  :  .3648  :  ?38 

0  :  .32486  :  .34 

1  :  .2893  :  .3 

2  :  .25763  :  .284 

3  :  .22942  :  .259 

4::  .20431  :  .238 

5  :  .18194  :  .22 

6  :  .16202  :  .203 

7  :  .14428  :  .18 

8  :  .12849  :  .165 

9  :  .11443  :  .148 

10  :  .10189  :  .134 

11  :  .090742:  .12 

12  :  .080808:  .109 

13  :  .071961:  .095 

14  :  . 064084 :  .083 

15  :  .057068:  .072 

16  :  .05082  :  .065 

17  :  .045257:  .058 

18  :  .040303:  .049 

19  :  .03589  :  .042 

20  :  .031961:  .035 

'  21  :  .028462:  .032 

22  :  .025347:  ,028 

23  :  .022571:  .025 

24  :  .0201  :  .022 

25  :  .0179  :  .02 

26  :  .01594  :  .018 

27  :  .014195:  .015 

28  :  .012641:  .014 

29  :  .011257:  .013 

30  :  .010025:  .012 

31  :  .008928:  .01 

32  :  .00795  :  .009 

33  :  .00708  :  .008 

34  :  .006304':  .007 

35  :  .005614:  .005 

36  :  .005  :  .004 

37  :  .004453: 

38  :  .003965:  .... 

39  :  .003531:  .... 

40::  .003144:  .... 


.46 

.43 

.393 

.362 

.331 

.307 

.283 

.263 

.244 

.225 

.207 

.192 

.177 

.162 

.148 

.135 

.12 


.072 

.063 

.054 

.047 

.041 

.035 

.032 


.02 

.018 

.017 

.016 

.015 

.014 

.0135 

.013 

.011 

.01 

.0095 


'  .*45 


.305 

.285 

.265 

.245 

.225 

.205 


.3586: 
.3282: 
.2994: 
.2777: 
.2591: 
.2401: 
.223  : 
. 2047 : 
.1885: 
.1758: 
.1605: 
.1471: 
.1351: 


.1175 

.105 

.0925 


.061 
.0525 
.045 
.04 
.035 
.031 
.028  : 
.025 
.0225 
.02 
.018 


.015 

.014 

.013 

.012 

.011 

.01 

.0095: 

.009 

.0085 

.008 


.1205: 
.1065: 
.0928: 
.0816: 
.0726: 
; 0627 : 
.0546: 
.0478: 
.0411: 
.0351: 
.0321: 
.029  : 
.0261: 
.0231: 
.0212: 
.0194: 
.0182: 
.017  : 
.0163: 
.0156: 

. 0146 : 
.0136: 
.013  : 
.0118: 
.0109: 
.01  : 
.0095: 
.009  : 
.0083: 
.0078: 


OOOOOO 

00000 

0000 

000 


4. 

5 

6 
7 


.  .083 
.072 
.065 
.058 
.049 
.04 
.035 
.0315 
.0295 
.  027"' 
.025 
.023 
.  0205 
.01875 
.0165 
.0155 
.01375 
.01225 
.01125 
.01025 
.0095 
.009 
.0075 
.0065 
.00575 
.005 
.0045 


Mrr  Folio  No. 


/  /  /  O 


•..59 


Serial  No.  /^  f 


Applicant. 

. ^  • . <^i 


/A/lte. .  Examiner’s  Room  No . . 


■  ;;  ’  Ass’g’t  Exec . 


Liber  Page 


ACTIONS. 


1  /%£&..  1 6. 

2 . y'l  7: 

— \...6^..x..f&.fyjjj..y  \  8. 

4 . .^^<fe?z^^..........<%^ . 

:..jfe d*.tf.4..k^..  20. 

. .  [a&...-. . .•...:.■_  2i. 

7 . ..^'/'.:.<.:...^r, . I.:../:' . 


#.  .8 . ,:..a 

Is  » j£ 

;r  ,0~?» 

. 1 .  ... 

||'V '4^. 28 . 


Petition. 


Co  tbe  Commissioner  of  patents : 

jljour  [Petitioner  i  THOI/uVr . X.  EDI  SO  IT,  a  citizen  ofl  the  United 
States,  residing  and  having  his  post- office  address  at  Ilewellyn 
Park,  Orange-:,  Ksssox  County,  17or  Jersey, 

IPrags  tbat  letters  patent  inag  be  granteb  to  bint  for  tbe  IKPRDVKHEOTR  I1T 
KDEGTRO-MAGUKTS  POR  it  AGNATIC  SEPARATORS 


set  fortb  In  tbe  atutexeb  specification ;  anb  be  berebg  appoints  jfranh  X.  ®ger  (IRegls® 
tratlon  mo.  560),  of  tSblson  Xaboratorg,  ©range,  mew  3erseg,  bis  attorney,  wltb  full 
power  of  substitution  anb  revocation,  to  prosecute  tbfs  application,  to  mafie  altera® 
tlons  anb  amenbments  therein,  to  receive  tbe  patent,  anb  to  transact  all  business  In 
tbe  patent  office  connecteb  tberewitb.  ^ 

i/f  -  ru> . 


SPECIFICATION. 


TO  WHOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN: - 


BE  IT  KNOWN  that  I,  Thomas  A.  Edi¬ 
son,  of  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange,  in  the  County  of  Essex, 
State  of  New  Jersey,  have  invented  certain  improvements  in 
Electro-Magnets  for  Magnetic  Separators  (Ca3e  No.  1,110), 
of  which  the  following  is  a  description: 

My  invention  relates  to  electro-magnets,  and  has 
for  its  object  so  to  construct  them  that  in  comparison  with 
those  hitherto  used,  they  shall  be  of  very  economical  con¬ 
struction,  and,  for  a  given  expenditure  of  electrical  ener¬ 
gy,  of  greatly  increased  cupacity. 

Hitherto,  where  a  magnetic  field  of  considerable 
width  has  been  necessary,  the  magnets  have  usually  been  of 
substantially  the  same  width  as  the  said  field,  and  have, 
therefore,  presented  a  great  mass  of  metal  requiring  a  com¬ 
paratively  great  amount  of  electrical  energy  to  energise 
it,  thus  involving  considerable  expense  in  construction 
and  operation. 

Ercm  experiments  made,  it  has  been  found  that  an 
electro-magnet  may  be  so  constructed  as,  in  comparison 
with  those  hitherto  used,  and  for  a  given  expenditure  of. 
electrical  energy,  to  present  a  magnetic  field  of  consider¬ 
ably  greater  width  than  the  width  of  the  magnet  proper, 
provided  that  certain  approximate  proportions  be  observed 
in  the  length  and  cross-sectional  area  of  the  pole-pieces 
and  the  width  of  the  air  gap,  and  the  present  Invention 
consists  in  electro-magnets  having  these  greatly  extended 
pole-pieces. 

It  is  not  proposed  to  state  the  above  mentioned 
proportions  in  anything  approaching  precise  terms,  but  the 
(1) 


following  arrangement  of  the  apparatus,  as  embodied  in  an 
electro-magnetic  separator  as  used  in  the  ora  milling  in¬ 
dustry,  has  been  found  to  give  highly  satisfactory  results. 
This  application  of  the  improved  electro-magnets  to  elec¬ 
tro-magnetic  separators  is  merely  given  as  an  example, 
and  their  applicability  to  other  purposes  with  or  without 
slight  variations  in  the  stated  proportions  will  readily 
suggest  themselves  to  the  reader. 

The  cost  of  construction  and  the  capacity  of  the 
electro-magnetic  separators,  and  the  quality  of  the  result¬ 
ant  concentrates  are  three  vital  items  to  be  considered 
in  the  attainment  of  magnetic  separation  of  iron  ore  on 
commercially  successful  lines. 

The  cost  of  construction  depends  chiefly  on  the 
design  and  arrangement  of  the  magnet-3,  and  the  number  of 
magnets  required  to  deal  with  a  given  quantity  of  mater¬ 
ial;  the  capacity  depends  on  the  quantity  of  material 
an  electro-magnet  is  capable  of  separating  for  a  given 
amount  of  electrical  energy  applied;  and  the  quality  of 
the  resultant  concentrates  depends  on  the  thickness  of  the 
stream  of  ore  passed  in  front  of  the  magnet,  and  the  num¬ 
ber  of  times  it  is  so  passed. 

from  experiments  already  made,  1  have  found  that 
it  is  more  economical  to  pass  a  thin  stream  of  ore,  say 
about  an  eighth  of  an  inoh  in  thickness,  in  front  of  three 
magnets  than  it  is  to  pass  a  stream  of  double  than  thick¬ 
ness  In  front  of  six  magnets,  the  grade  of  the  resultant 
concentrates  being  much  higher  from  the  former  system  of 
working  than  from  the  latter,  from  these  deductions  the 
facto  are  established  that  whatever  the  system  of  electro¬ 
magnets  used,  to  obtain  a  very  high  grade  concentrate  in 
the  most  economical  manner  the  said  elect ro-magnets  must 
be  cheap  to  construct,  require  little  energy  to  magnetise 

_  (a) 


them,  and  present  a  large  surface  to  the  falling  stream 
of  ore  and  that  the  ore  he  spread  out  into  a  thin  wide 
stream. 

If  proper  constructional  proportions  he  observed 
(say,  for  example,  such  as  those  hereinafter  specified)  the 
lines  of  force  in  a  magnet  can  he  made  to  travel  along  hars 
of  iron  or  soft  steel  to  great  distances  and  produce  a  mag¬ 
netic  field  of  uniform  strength  throughout  the  same  dis¬ 
tance  ,  and  advantage  is  taken  of  this  fact  hy  using  an  elec¬ 
tro-magnet,  of  comparatively  small  Width  and  applying  there¬ 
to  pole-pieces  of  the  same  length  ns  the  desired  magnetic 
field  and  constructed  of  iron  or  soft  metal  of  the  required 
orooa-soctiomi  area,  the  two  pole-pieces  being  situated' 
at  the  distance  apart  necessary  to  provide  the  appropriate 
width  of  air  gap  between  their.. 

The  number  of  lines  of  force  which  the  pole-pieces 
of  given  cross-sections  will  carry  with  a  given  width  of 
air  gap  is  much  below  the  saturation  point,  and  it  has  been 
found  that  in  dealing  with  highly  magnetic  ores,  pole- 
pieces  of  say  four  fact  in  length  having  cross-sections 
of  from  four  to  eight  square  inches  and  an  air  gap  of  from 
three  to  four  and  one-half  inches  have  produced  the  best 
resultis.  The  length  .of  the  pole-pieces,  however,  is  propor¬ 
tional  to  the.  width  of  the  air  gap,  the  number  of  lines  of 
foroe  and  the  oross-seotional  area  of  the  said  pole-pieces. 

When  the  improved  electro-magnets  are  intended  for 
use  in  separating  the  magnetic  particles  from  a  falling 
stream  of  ore,  the  low.er  pole-pieces  may  conveniently  be 
of  angle  bar  section  and  bolted  to  the  lower  end  of  the 
magnet  body,  and  the  upper  pole-pieoe  may  be  formed  of  a 
flat  bar  or  plate  bolted  to  the  upper  end  of  the  magnet 
body  bo  as  to  incline  from  the  upper  edge  to  the  lower  edge 


(3) 


and  ao  as  to  overlap  tho  lower  p ole-piece ;  or  the  said 
pole-pieces  may  bo  formed  of  any  other  desired  shape  in 
cross-section. 

In  the  accompanying  drawings  U:o  improvements  con¬ 
stituting  the  pro cent  invention  are,  us  an  arample ,  repre¬ 
sented  in  the  form  which  has  bo  tn  found  to  give  the  best 
results  in  their  application  to  the  magnetic  separation 
of  iron  ores. 

In  those  drawings  which  are  to  bo  read  with  and 
taken  as  part  of  this  specif ioati on: 

Figure  1,  is  a  front,  elevation  and 

Figure  2,  a  plan  of  one  of  the  improved  magnets,  and 

Figure  3,  is  a  side  elevation  of  a  portion  of  a  'mag¬ 
netic  oro  separator  showing  the  said  magnet  embodied  therein. 

As  represented  in  the  drawings  the  improved  magnet 
consists  of  a  body  1,  of  approximately  horse-shoe  form 
ancl  comprising:  an  upper  portion  2,  a  lower  portion  3,  and 
a  vertical  or  middle  portion,  the  last  named  of  which  is 
encircled  by  and  concealed  within  the  necessary  energising 
coil  4.  The  end  face  of  the  upper  portion  2,  is  inclined 
in  relation  to  the  axis  of  the  coil  4,  and  that  of  lower 
portion  3,  is  parallel  with  the  said  axis,  the  former  face 
overhanging  or  projecting  more  forwardly  than  the  latter 
face,  all  as  shown  most  clearly  in  Figure  3, 

To  the  inclined  face  of  the  upper  portion  2,  the 
upper  pole-piece  5,  is  secured  by  two  bolts  0,  this  pole- 
piece  being  formed  of  a  flat  plato  of  iron  or  soft  steel, 
and  to  the  vertical  face  of  the  lower  portion  3,  the  lower 
pole-piece  7,  is  secured  by  two  bolts  8,  this  said 'pole- 
piece  being  formed  of  iron  or  soft  steel  of  angle  bar 


(4) 


[•lection.  The  respective  meeting  faces  of  the  pole-piece 
5  and  portion  S,  and  of  the  pole  piece  7  and  portion  3,  are 
truly  planed  and  surfaced  to  as  to  provide  the  best  con¬ 
tacts  possible  between  the  said  parts. 

In  the  practical  embodiment  of  the  Improved  mag¬ 
net  represented  in  figure  3,  the  said  magnet  in  supported 
in  Buch  a  position  that  the  two  pole  pieces,  5  and  7,  are 
situated  above  a  separating  board  or  partition  10,'  the  up¬ 
per  pole-piece  5,  overhanging  the  front  of  the  partition 
and  the  lower  pole-piece  7,  overhanging  the  rear  of  this 
partition. 

Above  the  pole-piece  5,  is  provided  a  hopper  11, 
having  a  sui table  feed  roller  12,  which  delivers  the  crushed 
,ore  from  the  hopper  11,  in  a  thin  stream,  on  to  an  inclined 
chute  13,  which,  in  turn,  delivers  it.  on  to  an  inclined 
board  or  plate  14.  This  board  14,  serves  to  check  the 
descent  of  the  ore  so  that  the  ore  will  fall  upon  the  up¬ 
per  face  of  the  pole-piece  5,  near  the  lower  edge  thereof, 
immediately  after  it  haa  been  brought  to  rest,  wherefore 
the  material  will  not  acquire  any  appreciable  velocity 
,by  the  time  it  reaches  the  lower  edge  of  the  said  pole- 
piece.  The  non-magnetic  particles  falling  over  the  edge 
of  the. polo-piece  5,  drop  by  gravity  in  front  of  the  parti¬ 
tion  10,  that  is,  the  left  hand  3ide  of  it  in  figure  3, 
while  the  magnetic  particles,  acted  upon  hy  the  lines  of 
force  between  the  two  pole3  5  and  7,  are  drawn  rearwards 
( or  rightwards  in  figure  3)  and  thereby  separated  from  the 
descending  ganglia  and  caused  to  fall  at  the  rear  or  right 
side  of  the  partition,  all  as  indicated  in  figure  3,  wherein 
the  resultant  accumulations  of  magnetic  and  non-magnetic 
particles  are  respectively  marked  15  and  16. 

Without  in  any  way  restricting  the  invention  to 
any  specific  dimensions  or  proportions  it  may  be  mentioned 


S.  In  aA  electro-magnet,  the  combination  with  the 
magnet  \ody,  of \ ole-pieces  of  a  length  c onnifierably  great¬ 
er  than  the  widthW  the  magnet  body,  and  made  separate 
the ref ran  and  attached  thereto,  and  means  for  attaching 
the  a  aid  pole  pieces  to  the  magnet  body,  substantially  as 
set  forth.  \  \ 


\ 

1  electro-m; 


the  combination  with  the 
magnet  body,  of  pole-pieces  of  length  considerably  greater 

fV;r 

Aace  be i ng  \ ub 


than  the  width 
from,  one  p  do¬ 


ty  ,  and(  made  separate  there- 
s  the  other  and  made  of 
flat  metal  plate  inclined  ii\  a  direction  transverse  to 
its  length,  and  the  othei^p ol^-piece  being  of  angle  bar 


,  substui 


7.  In  an  electro  magnet, 
magnet  body,  of  p ole-pie 


combination  with  the 
c  oh  side  rably "greater 


of\lch|;th 

than  the  width  of  the  magnet  bodyn  Wd  made  separate  there- 
p ole-piece,  being  above  fho\ other  and  made  of  flat 
i\cfjansverso  to 


from,  orji 

metal  plate  inclined  in  a  dirtsir 
length,  the  other  pole-p:ieco  being  ofVlngle  bar  section, 
the  edges  of  the  two  pole-pieces  and  biflmeiin  which  the 
magnetic  field  is  formed,  being  3ituatwdV\j  different' 
vertical  planes,  substantially  as  sat  fort^ 


(7) 


Ebis  specification  signed  and  witnessed  tbis  //  dap  of  i /tus,  190J 

rv- 


1.  . . 


2 . . 


Oath. 


State  of 
Count?  of 


iy/ &ur 

^SL^t^C 


THOMAS  A.  EDI  SOI!  ,  tbe  above=named 

petitioner,  belno  dnlp  sworn,  deposes  and  saps  tbat  be  is  a  citizen 
of  tbe  united  States,  and  a  resident  of  Elev/wllyn  Park,  Orange, 
in  the  County  of  Ensex  and  State:  Of  New  Jersey; 


tbat  be  verilp  believes  bimself  to  be  tbe  original,  first  and  sole  inventor  of  tbe 


IiO’KOVNEENTR  Iff  EDECTOO-KACKTKT3  POP.  MAGNETIC  SEPAT.ATOHS 

described  and  claimed  in  tbe  annexed  specification ;  tbat  be  does  not  [mow  and  does 
not  belteve  tbat  tbe  same  was  ever  [mown  or  used  bp  others  in  tbe  TUnited  States  of 
Hmerica  before  bis  invention  or  discoverp  thereof ;  or  patented  or  described  in  anp 
printed  publication  in  tbe  Ulnited  States  of  Hmerfca  or  anp  foreign  countrp  before  bis 
invention  or  discoverp  thereof,  or  more  than  two  pears  prior  to  tbis  application ;  or 
In  public  use  or  on  sale  in  tbe  Tiluited  States  for  more  than  two  pears  prior  to  this1 
application,  and  tbat  no  application  for  patent  upon  said  invention  bas  been  filed  bp 
him  or  bis  legal  representatives  or  assigns  in  anp  foreign  countrp  more  than  seven 
months  prior  to  tbe  filing  of  tbis  application. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  tbis 
[Seal]- 


^  dap  of  1  100  3 

motarp  public. 

-Ni)Tl**Y  NEW  WRS»Y, 


m.e.o. 

Room  No...3lU5. 


%rf. 


department  or  the  Interior, 

United  States  (Patent  Office, 

WASHINOTON,  D.  C.,  AUg.  89  ,  1903 , 

ShonSS  A.  Edison,  CffTT 

Oaro  Prank  X>  Dyer, 
i  I  Orange,  H.J. 


•IATEI'/t  OF! 

AUG  29  jouy 
■p^-^-lXj±nT^J 

Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 

#L6§;,‘& 54,  filed  Aug.  13,  1903,  for  Electro-Magnet  for  MWjridtio  Sep¬ 
arators.  ~ 

h  i 


J.  mL- . 


Applioant  is  required  to  cancel  “{Case  Ko.1,118)*  fro*  the 
preanble  of  the  specif  toation. 

Claims  1  and  3  are  rejected  as  destitute  of  patentable  novelty 
'  \S  ‘  I/"  1 

in  view  of  89,188,  Righter,  Sept.  84,  1867j  883,991,  Pritn,  Jan.  87, 

1880  tf  is.  6) ;  308,778,  Ripley  at  al.,  Oot,.  31,  1884,  figs.  3  and 
8}  and  783,389,  Winder,  June  84,  1983,  jjaffietio  Separators. 

Old  m  3  Is  r  ejected  as  lacking  invention  in  view  of  the  above 

’  '  l/'  .  • 

cited,  references,  and  English  patent  14,368,  fhe  Edison  Ore  Hilling 
Syndicate  (lira) ,  Aug.  10,  1900,  Hagnetio  Separators. 

fllni ms  4  and  8  are  rejected  on  the  saae  referenees  a# claim  jfc. 
See  Rifjhter  and  Winder  for  separate  or  separable  poieF?piei»sv , . 

;Oikns  6  and  7  are  rejected  in  view  of  the  above  cited  referem 
and :47.8iJ»89,  Edison,  HWoh  18,  1898,  Hagnetio  Separators. 


Jtsaniner, 


Case  No,..?r^../>|)|H!i'  Nu,../.. 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPEIGB, 


/ 


4 

■&h 

i 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

Electro-magnets  for 

Magnetio  Separators.  :  Room  Ho.  315. 

Eiled  August  l?th,1903. 

Serial  Ho^  169, >334. 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  03?  PATENTS. 

Sir:-  ! 

Replying  to  office  action  of  August  29th, 1903, 
Ipleaoe  amend  the  above  entitled  oaae  as  follows: 

°:La^ns  on  f  ile,  and  insert  the  following  cStims: 
l^In  a  magnetic  separator,  a  sloping  check  board, 
an  electro-magnet  having  an  upper  pole  piece  which  consists 
of  a  plate- sloping  downward  toward  the  lower  edge  of  the 
|hack  board\»nd  an  epqrgtiieg  coil,  whose  width  is  con¬ 
siderably  le.qs^ than  the  width  of  said  pole  pieoe,  substan¬ 
tially  ap  sqt  forth. 

2-,Elni  a  magnetic^  separator,  a  sloping  check  board,  an 
electroj-mag^et  having^an  upper  pole  pieoe  which  consists 
of  a  j^ate  ^sloping  downward  toward  the  lower  edge  of  the 
check'bo/ird'?  a  lower  polVpieoe  which  oonsists  of  a  plate 
extending  forward  from  theSbody  of  the  magnet  at  an  angle 
to  the  direction  of  flow  of  the  naterial,  and  an  energiz¬ 
ing,  coil  whose.',  width  is  c  on  si  de'rably  loss  than  the  width 
of -said  pole  pieces,  substantially.  as  set  forth. 

"'3V  In  a  magbetio  separator,  a  Bioping  oheok  board,  an 
eleotro-  magnet,  having  an  upper  pole  pieoe  which  consists 
of  a  pisyte  feLoping  downward  toward  the  ^ower  edge  of  the 
ohedk  board $  a  lower  pole. pieoe  which  oonsists  of  an  angle 
plate  having  one  flange seoured  to  the  body  df  the  magnet 

\ 


h.m  o.. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  d.  c.,  Aprl  1,^.' #0** 


atiiafi  ae  amended  April  Id,  M04,  further  considered. 

Olatai  1  is  Rejected  in  view  of  the  British  patent  of  record, 
and  any  Instance  of  a  coil  of  amU  dimensions  in  connection  with 
a. wide  pole  piece  --  Richter,  Ripley  of.  al . ,  dr  Winder  of  record* 
"'•rClais  8  is  rejected  Upon  the  safee  references  as  claim  1. 
Claim  A  is  rejected  as  destitute  of  indention  in  view  .of  the 

references  for  olaira  1  and  408,684,  kfctim,  May  7,  1689,  Karnetie 

'  :V  •  '•  •/•■'  ■■"•  -•  .  ('  ■  ‘  i 

Separators,  shewing  pole  pieoos  formed  of  detachable  ancle  irons. 


'v  ’  Rjcamin  er, 


Mvisicn  77V. 


V 


August'  26,1904 


Charles  g.  V/oodroffe,  EBq., 

188  Eleet  Street, 

London,  E.C.,  England. 


Bear  Sir:- 

I  enclose  herewith,  a  copy  of  the  last  Office  action 
in  the  case  of  application  of  Thoms  A.  Edison  for  patent  for 
Electro-Magnet  for  Magnetic  separators,  filed  August  13,  1903,  the 
said  action  Being  dated  April  29,  1904.  I  also  enclose  copies  of 
all  the  references  which  have  been  cited  by  the  Examiner  and  a  copy 
of  the  claims  which  were  last  acted  upon  by  the  Examiner. 

As  you  will  observe,  these  claims  are  somewhat  more 
limited  than  those  originally  filed.  The  Examiner  is  unable  to  see 
anything  patentable  in  providing  the  separator  magnets  of  British 
patent  No.  14,355  of  August  10,  1900,  with  extended  pole  pieces  - 
that  is,  pole  pieces  whose  width  is  considerably  greater  than  the 
width  of  the  energii'rrg  coil ,  in  view  of  the  U.  S.  patents  cited  as 
showing  pole  pieces  of  this  character. 

There  does  not  appear  to  be  very  much  chance  of  obtain* 
ing  a  U.  S.  patent  unless  we  can  point  out  some<  difference  in  princti 
pie  or  result  accomplished  by  the  Edison  device,  different t from  the 
principles  or  results  of  the  references. 


'I 

I’ 


CharleB  S.  Woodruff e ,  EBq,. . . .  2 


Will  you  kindly  take  up  this  matter  with  Ur.  Ballen- 
tine  or  others  who  have  worked  with  these  separators,  and  let  me 
know  whether  or  not  they  consider  the  subject-matter  of  the  applica¬ 
tion  anticipated  by  these  references  and  if  not,  the  reasons  why; 
the  references  do  not  anticipate. 

yours  very  truly,  . 

dii/km. 

Encs. 


Department  of  the  Interior 
UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE. 

Washington,  D.C.  April  29,1904 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

Care  Prank  1.  Dyer, 

Orange,  N.  J. 

Please  find  'below  a  communication  from  the 
EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application  No.  169,334,  filed  August 
13,  1903,  for  Electro-Magnet  for  Magnetic  Separators. 


P.  I.  Allen, 

Commissioner  of  Patents. 


Case  as  amended  April  16,  1904,  further  considered. 

Claim  1  is  rejected  in  view  of  the  British  Patent  of  record, 
and  any  instance  of  a  coil  of  small  dimensions  in  connection  with 
a  wide  pole  piece  —  Righter,  Ripley  et  al,  or  Winder  of  record. 

Claim  2  is  rejected  upon  the  same  reference  as  claim  1. 

Claim  3  is  rejected  as  destitute  of  .(Invention  in  view  of 
the  references  for  claim  1  and  402,684,  Maxim,  May  7,  1889,  Magnetic 
Separators,  showing  pole  pieces  formed  of  detachable  angle  irons. 


Examiner, 


Division  XXV. 


COPY 


1.  In  a  magnetic  separator,  a  sloping  check  hoard, 
an  electro-magnet  having  an  upper  pole  piece  which  consists 
of  a  plate  sloping  downward  toward  the  lower  edge  of  the 
check  hoard,  and  an  energizing  ooil,  whose  width  is  consid¬ 
erably  less  than  the  width  of  said  pole  piece,  substantial¬ 
ly  as  set  forth. 

2.  In  a  magnetic  separator,  a  sloping  check  hoard, 
an  electro-magnet  having  an  upper  pole  piece  which  con¬ 
sists  of  a  plate  sloping  downward  toward  the  lower  edge 
of  the  check  hoard,  a  lower  pole  piece  vrtiich  consists  of 
a  plate  . ext enditajr forward  from -the .-body, iof -the  magnet^alt 
a'n  angle, :to  the  direction  of  flow  of  the  material,  and  an 
energizing  coil  whose 'width  is  considerably  less  than  the 
width  of  said  pole  pieces,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

3.  In  a  magnetic  separator,  a  sloping  check  hoard, 
an  electro-magnet  having  an  upper  pole  piece  'which  con¬ 
sists  of  a  plate  sloping  downward  toward  the  lower  edge  of 
the  check  hoard,  a  lower  pole  piece  which  consists  of  an 
angle  plate  having  one  flange  secured  to  the  body  of  the 
magnet  and  the  other  flange  extending  forward  therefrom  at 
an  angle  to  the  direction  of  flow  of  the  material,  and 
energizing  ooil  whose  width  is  considerably  less  than  the 
width  of  Bald  pole  pieces,  substantially  as  set  forth, 


Chas.  S.  Woodroffe. 


FAC. 


^  ?<9&  .<&cee£‘zJffiee& 

<Z^^O?Z<ZO?Z/  3rd>-Decembe'r.  1904. 


Frank  L.  Dyer  Esq., 

Edison  Laboratories  (Legal  Department), 
OEANGE,  N.J.  U.S.A. 


Dear  Sir, 


Edison  U, S.A.  Patent  Application  filed  Aug. 13th  1903. 


In  reply  to  yours  of  August  26th  last,  I  have  been  in  coin- 
munication  with  Mr .Ballantine  several  times,  and  regret  that  I  cannot 
give  you  any  assistance  in  the  prosecution  of  the  above  application. 
In  view  of  the  numerous  references  quoted  against  the-  alleged  inven¬ 
tion  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  no  invention  in  it 
at  all.  4SL1  the  applications  which  I  have  filed  on  this  side  in  ' 
countries  v/here  applications  are  examined  for  novelty  have  been 
unsuccessful. 


Yours  faithfully, 


TOUTED  STATES  PATENT  OEEICE 


Thomas  A.  Edison 


Piled  August  13,  1903 
Serial  No.  169,334 


Room  No.  315. 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS 
SIH:  - 

Replying  to  Office  aotion  of  April 
29,  1904,  please  amend  the  above  entitled  case  as  follows: 

Cancel  the  claims  on  file  and  insert  the  follow¬ 
ing  claim:  K  ,  .  ,  /  . 

electro-magnet  having 


i  magnetic  sAparator, 

laterally  elongated  pole  pt^oes  and  an  energizing  coil 


whose  width  is  considerably 
pole  pieces,  the  number  of  lin&> 
circuit  being  greatly  below  the 


than  the  width  of  said 
force  in  the  magnetic 
Ltuhation  point  of  the 


I 


pole  pieces  and  the  magnetio  field  b^ing  of  praotioally 
uniform  strength  throughout  the  width  or  lateral  extent  of 
the  pole  pieces,  substantially  aB  set  foiS| 


') 

<v 


REMARKS 


The  above  claim  is  believed  to  be  patentable  overt 
the  references.  Although  certain  of  the  references  show 
magnets  provided  with  elongated  pole  pieces,  none  of  tthe 
references  explains  how  a  uniform  magnetio  field  may  be 
obtained  throughout  the  lateral  extend  of  the  pole  pieoeB, 

1. 


and  consequently  faille  to  disclose  a  magnet  which  would  j 

possess  the  utility  and  acc ompliah  the  functions  of  appli-  j 
oant's  invention. 

It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  the  magnet¬ 
ic  field  he  of  uniform  strength  throughout  the  width  of  j 
the  air  gap,  because  otherwise  it  will  he  impossible  to  j 
obtain  an  efficient  separation.  Heretofore  this  has  been  ! 
done  by  using  pole  pieces  ’whose  width  is  approximately  ! 

the  same  or  less  than  that  of  the  energizing  coIIb,  but  j 
this  method  is  objectionable,  since  a  large  amount  of  en-  i 
ergy  iB  used  up  in  the  energizing  coils  in  proportion  to 
the  amount  of  material  which  can  be  treated  by  such  an  j 

apparatus.  It  is  therefore  desirable  to  increase  the  j 

width  of  the  pole  pieces.  This,  however,  will  usually  have  j 
the  effect  of  producing  a  strong  field  at  the  points  near-  [ 
est  the  energizing  coils  and  a  field  of  diminished  streng¬ 
th  at  the  more  remote  parts  of  the  pole  pieces.  Appli¬ 
cant,  however,  has  designed  a  magnet  which  produces  a 
field  of  perfectly  uniform  strength  throughout  the  entire 
extent  of  the  pole  pieces,  so  that  large  amounts  of  mater- 

! 

ial  can  be  treated  in  an  efficient  manner  as  regards  sep-  | 
aration  and  with  a  great  Baving  in  the  amount  of  current  j 
used  for  energizing  the  current.  This  feature  being  novel  ! 
and  useful  it  is  believed  that  the  claim  should  be  allowed.i  j 


Orange,  Hew  Jersey, 
April  /  1905. 


BeBpeotfully  submitted, 

THOMAS  A.  EDISOH, 


■  Qi'LsA 

His  Attorney. 


/ 


M.B.O. 

Div.__.4Jg.,  Room _ 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  iNTERIOn 

United  States  Patent  Office, 


Washington,  c 


Thomas  A.  Bdisofl, 

Oars  Prank  L.  Dyer, 

Orange,  H.  J. 


May  24,  1905. 

M/Jv  Vs5' , 


Hoiuik  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of 


#169,334,  filed  Aug  13,  1903,  for  Bleotro-Hagnet  for  Jiagnetio 
Separator,  J 


Case  as  amended  April  3,  1905,  further  considered. 

The  olalm  is  rejected  in  view  of  Rlghter  and  Winder  of  reoord. 


Bxamlner, 

Division  XXV. 


■  iT 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OEEIOE, 


Thomas  A.  Edison 


Piled  August  13,  1903 
Serial  No.  169,334. 


Room  No.  315 


honorabie  commissioner  op  patents 

SIR:  — 

Replying  to  Offioe  action  of  May 
24,  1905,  please  amend  the  above  entitled  caee  by  cancell¬ 
ing  the  olaimB  and  inserting  the  following  claims; 

~~~ — — In  a  magnetic  separator,  a  sloping  oheok 
board,  an  eleotro-mdgnet  having  an  upper  pole  piece  which 
consists  of  a  plate  sloping  downward  toward  the  lower  edge 
of  the  check  board  and  an  energizing  coil  whose  width  is 
considerably  less  than  the  width  of  said  pole  piece, 
the  number  of  lines  of  force  in  the  magnetic  oiroult 
being  greatly  below  the  saturation  point  of  the  pole 
pieoes  and  the  magnetic  field  being  of  praotioally  uniform 
strength  throughout  the  width  or  lateral  extent  of  the 
| polo  pieces,  oubstantially  as  set  forth. 

2.  In  a  magnetic  separator,  a  Bloplng  check 
Jboard,  an  eleotro-magnet  having  an  upper  pole  pieoe  which 
consists  of  a  plate  sloping  downward  toward  the  lower  edge 
of  the  oheok  board,  a  lower  pole  pieoe  whioh  consists  of 
a  plate  extending  forward  from  the  body  of  the  magnet 
at  an  angle  to  the  direction  of  flow  of  the  material, 
land  an  energising  coll  whose  width  is  considerably  less 
than  the  width  of  said  pole  pieoes,  the  number  of  lines  of 


erf-"/0? 


foroa  in  the  magnetio  circuit  being  greatly  below  the  sat¬ 
uration  point  of  the  pole  pieces,  and  the  magnetio  field 
being  of  praotioally  uniform  strength  throughout  the  width 
or  lateral  extent  of  the  pole  pieoes,  substantially  as  set 
forth.  - — - 


-REMARKS- 

Applioant  has  limited  the  claims  to  what  he 
believes  to  be  the  aotual  invention  as  fully  Bet  forth 
in  the  speoifioation.  The  advantages  of  this  struoture 
over  the  prior  art  have  been  fully  explained,  and  as  the 
struoture  now  claimed  is  not  disolosed  in  any  or  all  of 
the  references,  the  olaims  are  believed  to  be  allowable, 
which  is  respeotfully  solicited. 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON 
By 

Orange ,  New  Jersey  Attorney. 

January/  /  'Y  1906. 


3. 


M.B.O. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR. 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

■Washington,  D.  C., 

Thomas  A.  Edison, 

Cara  Frank  L .  Dyer, 

Orange,  B.J.  ^  .. 

Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 

#169,334,  filed  August  13,  1903,  for  Electro-Magnet  for  Magnetic 
Separator. 


Commissioner-  of  Paien  ts . 


Case  as  amended  January  18,  1906,  further  considered. 

The  claims  are  rejected  as  destitute  of  patentable  novelty 
in  view  of  the  references  noted  in  the  last  offioe  letter  and 
British  patent  14,306,  The  Edison  Ore  Milling  Syndicate,  August  10, 
1900,  Magnetic  Separators.  - 


Examiner, 


Division  XXV. 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPFIOl 


Thomas  A.  Edison  ) 

ELECTRO  MONETS  EOR  MAGNETIC  ) 
SEPARATORS  : 

) 

Piled  August  13,  1903  : 

Serial  No.  169,334  : 


Room  No.  315 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS 

S  I  H  |  - 


Replying  to  03'fice 
action  of  January  22,  1906,  please  amend  the  above  en¬ 
titled  case  by  correoting  the  spelling  of  the  word 
"magnet",  in  line  2,  claim  1. 

R  E  M  ARKS 

A  reconsideration  of  the  claims  is  requested. 

The  claims  specify  an  electro  magnet  of  a  particu¬ 
lar  form,  the  energizing  coil  of  which  is  of  considerably 
less  width  than  the  upper  pole-piece  or  both  pole-pieoes, 
the  number  of  lines  of  foroe  in  the  magnetic  circuit 
being  greatly  below  the  saturation  point  of  the  pole- 
pieoes,  and  the  magnetic  field  being  of  praotically  uni¬ 
form  strength  throughout  the  width  or  lateral  extent  of 
the  pole-iieoes.  There  is  no  disclosure  of  these 
features  in  any  or  all  of  the  references. 

In  British  Patent  No.  14,365  of  1900,  the  ooils  are 
of  substantially  the  same  width  as  the  pole-pieoes,  and  thi 
struoture  is  therefore  Bubjeot  to  the  objections  pointed 


out  on  page  1  of  the  present  specification. 

Applioant  has  discovered  the  conditions  under 
which,  the  width  of  the  gole-pieoes  may  ha  greatly  increased 
and  economies  in  the  ubo  of  the  energizing  current  se¬ 
cured.  He  states  that  "in  dealing  with  highly  magnetic 
ores,  pole-pieces  of  say  four  feet  in  length  having  orosB- 
soctions  of  from  four  to  eight  square  inches  and  an  air 
gap  of  from  three  to  four  and  one-half  inches,  have  pro¬ 
duced  the  hast  reBultB.  The  length  of  the  pole -pi sees , 
however,  is  proportional  to  the  width  of  the  air  gap,  the 
number  of  lines  of  force  and  the  cross-Beotional  area  of 
the  said  poler pieces"  (page  3) . 

Although  some  of  the  reforonoes,  namely,  Righter 
and  Winder, show  magnets  whose  pole-pieces  are  of  much 
greater  width  than  the  coils,  those  references  are 
evidently  very  remote  from  the  present  invention.  There 
is  no  attempt  to  secure  a  uniform  magnetic  field. 

In  the  Righter  patent  ther3  is  no  means  for  passing 
a  stream  of  magnetio  material  aoros3  the  pole-pieoes,so 
it  appears  immaterial  whether  or  not  the  magnetio  field 
is  uniform.  The  magnets  rotate,  and  do  not  3erve  to 
deflect  moving  particles,  hut  merely  to  piok  up  station¬ 
ary  ones. 

In  the  patent  to  Winder,  the  magnets  are  merely 
used  for  removing  pieces  of  iron  from  cotton  and  it  is 
also  immaterial  whether  the  field  he  uniform  or  not. 

There  is  no  means  shown  hy  which  the  apparatus  oould  separ¬ 
ate  magnetic  particles  hy  deflection  in  the  manner  in 
which  applicant's  device  operates. 


The  olaimn  being  limited  to 
being  dearly  novel,  it  is  thought 
allowed. 

Respectfully  submitted. 


Orange,  Hew  Jersey 
January  //  1907 . 


the  invention,  and 
that  they  should  be 


OJtAS  A.  EDI  SOU 

Jfc  S~T~  _ 

His  Attorney. 


2—800. 


U.B.C. 

D.v.-8^ 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Jtto.  29,  1907  . 

fhos.  A.  Sdiaon, 

Cara  Srank  £.  Dyer, 

Orange,  1J.J. 

Please  find  below  a  communication,  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 

#169,3,54,  filed  Aug.  13,  1903,  for  Bleotro-Hagnet  for  Magnetic 


Separators, 


Case  rs  amended  and  argued  Jan.  12,  19q7, 

The  claims  are  again  and  finally  rejected  upon  the  references 


Examiner,  Dir.  X3CV, 


nu,, 

EbA-s  invention  relates  to  electro-magnets  and  has 
for  its  object  so  to  construct  them  that  in  comparison 
with  those  hitherto  used,  they  shall  be  of  very  economical 
construction,  and,  for  a  given  expenditure  of  electrical 
5,  energy,  of  greatly  increased  capacity. 

Hitherto  where  a  magnetic  field  of  considerable 
width  has  been  necessary,  the  magnets  have  usually  been  of 
substantially  the  same  width  as  the  said  field  and  have 
therefore  presented  a  great  mass  of  metal  requiring  a  com- 
10.  paratively  great  amount  of  electrical  energy  to  energise. 

it,  thus  involving  considerable  expense  in  construction 
and  operation. 

Prom  experiments  made,  it  has  been  found  that  an 
electro-magnet  may  be  so  constructed  as,  in  comparison 
15.  with  those  hitherto  used,  and  for  a  given  expenditure  of 

electrical  energy, to  present  a  magnetic  field  of  consider¬ 
ably  greater  width  than  the  width  of  the  magnet,  proper. 


-1- 


provided  that  certain  approximate  proportions  be  observed 
in  the  length  and  cross-sectional  area  of  the  pole-pieces 
and  the  width  of  the  air  gap,  and  the  present  invention 
consists  in  electro -magnets  having  these  greatly  extended 
pole-pieces. 

It  is  not  proposed  to  state  the  above  mentioned  pro¬ 
portions  in  anything  approaching  precise  terms,  but  the 
following  arrangement  of  the  apparatus  as  embodied  in  an 
electro-magnetic  separator  as  used  in  the  ore  milling 
industry,  has  been  found  to  give  highly  satisfactory 
results.  This  application  of  the  improved  electro¬ 
magnets  to  electro-magnetic  separators  is  merely  given  as 
example  and  their  applicability  to  other  purposes  with 
or  without  Blight  variations  in  the  stated  proportions 
will  readily  suggest  themselves  to  the  reader. 

The  cost  of  construction  and  the  capacity  of  the 
electro-magnetic  separators,  and  .the  quality  of  the  result 
ant  concentrates  are  three  vital  items  to  be  considered 
in  the  attainment  of  magnetic  separation  of  iron  ore  Oft 
commercially  successful  lines. 

The  cost  of  construction  depends  chiefly  on  the 
design  and  arrangement  of  the  magnets,  and  the  number  of 
magnets  required  to  deal  with  a  given  quantity  of  mater¬ 
ial;  the  capacity  depends  on  the  quantity  of  material 
an  electro -magnet  is  capable  of  separating  for  a  given 
amount  of  electrical  energy  applied;  and  the  quality 
of  the  resultant  concentrates  depends  on  the  thickness 
of  the  stream  of  ore  passed  in  front  of  the  magnet,  and 
the  number  of  times  .it  is  so  passed. 

4 

Prom  experiments  already  made,  -we  have  found  that  it 


-2-  • 


is  more  economical  to  pass  a  thin  stream  of  ore,  say 
about  an  eighth  of  an  inch  in  thickness,  in  front  of  three 
magnets  than  it  is  to  pass  a  stream  of  double  that  thick¬ 
ness  in  front  of  six  magnets,  the  grade  of  the  resultant 
concentrates  being  much  higher  from  the  former  system  of 
working  than  from  the  latter.  From  these  deductions  the 
facts  are  established  that  whatever  the  system  of  electro¬ 
magnets  UBed,  to  obtain  a  very  high  grade  concentrate  in 
the!  most  economical  manner  the  said  electro-magnets  muBt 
be  cheap  to  construct,  require  little  energy  to  magnetise 
them,  and  present  a  large  surface  to  the  falling  stream 
of  ore  and  that  the  ore  be  spread  out  into  a  thin  wide 
stream. 

If  proper  constructional  proportions  be  observed  (say 
for  example  such  as  those  hereinafter  specified)  the  lines 
of  force  in  a  magnet  can  be  made  to  travel  along  bars  of 
iron  or  soft  steel  to  great  distances  and  produce  a  mag¬ 
netic  field  of  uniform  strength  throughout  the  same  dis¬ 
tance  and  advantage  is  taken  of  this  fact  by  using  an  elec¬ 
tro  magnet  of  comparatively  small  width  and  applying  there¬ 
to  pole-pieces  of  the  same  length  as  the  desired  magnetic 
field  and  constructed  of  iron  or  soft  steel  of  the  required 
cross-sectional  area,  the  two  pole-pieces  being  situated 
at  the  distance  apart  necessary  to  provide  the  appropriate 
width  of  air  gap  between  them. 

Xhe  nuaiber  of  lines  of  force  which  the  pole-pieces 
of  given  cross-sections  will  carrry  with  a  given  width  of 
air  gap  is  much  below  the  saturation  point  and  it  has  been 
found  that  in  dealing  with  highly  magnetic  ores,  pole- 
pieces  of  say  four  feet  in  length  having  cross  sections 


of  from  four  to  eight  square  inches  and  an  air  gap.  of  frcm 
three  to  four  and  half  inches  have  produced  the  best  re¬ 
sults.  The  length  of  the  pole-pieces  however  is  propor¬ 
tional  to  the  width  of  the  air  gap,  the  number  of  lines  of 
force,  and  the  cross  sectional  area  of  the  said  pole-pieces. 

When  the  improved  electro-magnets  are  intended  for 
use  in  separating  the  magnetic  particles  from  a  falling 
stream  of  ore,  the  lower  pole-piece  may  conveniently  be 
of  angle  bar  section  and  bolted  to  the  lower  end  of  the 
magnet  body,  and  the  upper  pole-piece  may  be  formed  of  a 
flat  bar  or  plate  bolted  to  the  upper  end  of  the  magnet 
body  so  as  to  incline  from,  the  upper  edge  to  the  lower  edge 
and  so  as  to  overlap  the  lower  pole-piece;  or  the  said 
pole-pieces  may  be  f ormed  of  any  dther  desired  shape  in 
oross  section. 

In  the  accompanying  drawings  the  improvements  con¬ 
stituting  the  present  invention  are,  as  an  exanple,  re¬ 
presented  in  the  form  which  has  been  found  to  give  the 
best  results  in  their  application  to  the  magnetic  separation 
of  iron  ores.  > 

In  these  drawings  which  are  to  be  read  with  ,  and 
taken  as  part  of  this  specification:- 
Figure  1  is  a  front  elevation  and 
Figure  2  a  plan  of  one  of  the  improved,  magnets,  and 
Figure  3  is  a  side  elevation  of  a  portion  of  a  magnetic 
ore  separator  shewing  the  said  magnet  enfoodied  therein. 

As  represented  in  the  drawings  the  improved  magnet 
consists  of  a  body  1  of  approximately  horse-shoe  form 
and  comprising  an  upper  portion  2,  a  lower  portion  3  and 
a  vertical  or  middle  portion  the  last  named  of  which  is  er:- 


circles^  by  and  concealed  within  the  necessary  energising 
coil  4.  The  end  face  of  the  upper  portion  2  is.  inclined 
in  relation  to  the  axis  of  the  coil  4,  and  that  of  lower 
portion  3  ip  parallel  with  the  said  axis,  the  former  face 
overhanging  or  projecting  more  forwardly  than. the  latter 
face,  all  aB  shewn  most  clearly  in  Figure  3. 

To  the  inclined  face  of  the  upper  portion  2,  the 
upper  pole-piece  5  is  secured  by  two  bolt3  6  this  pole- 
piece  being  formed  of  a  flat  plate,  of  iron  or  soft  steel, 
and  to  the  vertical  face  of  the  lower  portion  3,  the  lower 
pole-piece  7  is  secured  by  two  bolts  8  this  said  pole- 
piece  being  formed  of  iron  or  soft  steel  of  angle  bar 
section.  The  respective  meeting  faceB-  of  the  pole-piece 
5  and  portion  2,  and  of  the  pole-piece  7  and  portion  3  are 
truly  planed  and  surfaced  so  as  to  provide  the  best  con¬ 
tacts  possible  between  the  said  parts. 

In  the  practical  embodiment  of  the  improved  magnet 
represented  in  figure  3  the  said  magnet  i3  supported  in 
such  a  position  that  the  two  pole  pieces  '5  and  7  are  situat¬ 
ed  above  a. separating  board  or  partition  10  the  upper  pole- 
pi^ce  5  overhanging  the  front  of  the  partition  and  the 
lower  pole  piece  7  overhanging  the  rear  of  this  partition. 

Above  the  pole-piece  5  is  provided  a  hopper  11  having 
a  suitable  feed  roller  12  Which  delivers  the  crushed  ore 
from  the  hopper  11,  in  a  thin  stream,  on  to  an  inclined  ' 
chute.  13  which,  in  turn,-  delivers  it  on.  to  an  inclined 
board  or  plate'  14.  This  board  14  serves  to  check  the 
descent  of  the' ore  so  that  the  ore  will  fall  upon  the 
•  upper  face  of  the  pole-piece  5  near  the  lower  edge  thereof, 
immediately  after  it  has  been  brought  to  rest,  wherefore 


the  material  will  not  acquire  any  appreciable  velocity 
by  the  time  it  reachea  the  lower  edge  of  the  Said  pole- 
piece.'  •  The  non-magnetic  partlclea  falling  over  the  edge 
of  the  pole-piece  5,  drop  by  gravity  in  front  of  the  parti¬ 
tion  10,  til  at  ia,  the  left  hand  aide  of  it  in  figure  3, 
while  the  magnetic  particles,  acted  upon  by  the  lineo  of 
force  between  the  two  pole3  5  and  7,  are  drawn  rearwardB 
(or  rightwards  in  figure  3)  and  thereby  separated  from  the 
descending  gangue  and  caused  to  fall  at  the  rear  or  right 
aide  of  the  partition,  all  as  indicated  in  figure  3  wherein 
the  resultant  accumulations  of  magnetic  and  non-magnetic 
particles  are  respectively  marked  15  and  16, 

Without  in  any  way  restricting  the  invention  to  any 
specific  dimensions  or  proportions  it  may  be  mentioned  that 
for  dealing  with  a  stream  of  ore  four  feet  wide,  highly 
satisfactory  and  commercially  successful  results  have  been 
obtained  from  apparatus  the  various  parts  of  which  have 
borne  the  relative  proportions  represented  in  the  drawings, 
the  pole-pieces  5  and  7  each  being  four  feet  long. 


1.  An  electro-magnet  having  pole-pieces  of  considerably 
greater  length  than  the  width  of  the  magnet  body, 

jjO'ZZL . 

2.  An  electro-magnet  having  pole-pieces  of  considerably 
greater  length  than  the  width  of  the  magnet  body  and  of  a 
cross  sectional  area  not  loss  than  sufficient  to  carry 

■lines  of  force  creating  a  magnetic  field  uniform  through¬ 
out  the  length  of  the  said  pole-pieces.,  ^ 
ALfr  ^  o-CuL  ,  ' 


Aiyslebtro-magnet  having  poxe- 

-s/ctional/area  of!  the  si 


the  length  and  cross- 
and/ bhe  width  of  "the 
y^ons  approximately  i 


itional/area  ok  the  said  po\le-pieces 
gap  between  then/having  propor- 


In  an  electro-magnet,  the  combination  with  the  magnet 
body,  of  pole-pieces  thereon  of  considerably  greater 
length  than  the  width  of  the  magnet  body  one  pole-piece 
being  above  the  other  and  inclined  so  that  material  deliver 


ed  on  to  its  upper  surface  will  by  gravity  fall  off  there- 
from^SroU,  L^Uc^cfk,  ^ 


fX.  In  an  electro-magnet  the  combination  with  the  magnet  ' 
body,  of  pole-pieces  thereon  of  a  length  considerably 


-7- 


boater  than  the  width  of  the  magnet  "body,  one  pole-piece 
being  above  the  other  and  having  its  edge  situated  in  a 
vertical  plane  different  from  that  in  which  is  situated 
the  edge  of  the  lower  pole-piece^.  ■ 


In  an  ele ctro -magnet ,  the  combination  with  the  magnet 
body^  of  pole-pieces  of  a  length  considerably  greater 
than  the  width  of  the  magnet  body,  and  made  separate 
therefrom  and  attached  thereto,  and  means  for  attaching  . 
the  said  pole-pieces  to  the  magnet  body, 


PT.  (o  In  an  electro-magnet,  the  combination  with  the  magnet 
body,  of  pole-pieces  of  length  considerably  greater  than 
the  width  of  the  magnet  body,  and  made  separate  there¬ 
from,  one  pole-piece  being  above  the  other  and  made  of 
flat  metal  plate  inclined  in  a  direction  transverse  to 
its  length  and  the  other  pole-piece  being  of  angle  bar 
section,  9>^7ZTXu&,  ^ 

0:J  In  an  electro-magnet,  the  combination  with  the  magnet 
body,  of  pole-pieces  of  length  considerably  greater. than 
the  width  of  the  magnet  body, and  made  separate  therefrom, 
one  polerpieoe  being  above  the  other  and  made  of  flat 
metal  plate  inclined  in  a  direction  transverse  to  its 
length,  the  other  pole-piece  being  of  angle  bar  section, 
the  edges  of  the  two  pole-pieces  and  between  which  the 
magnetic  field  is  formed, '  being  situated  in  different 
vertical  planes,  ^  (uA 


'^|  j‘  Applicant.  Address. 

||  |  df- . . 

yU  •■  *  .  ^^4  7 .  ■ 

■f.:  ) 

;•/■'■'  ■  •• 

.  /jf  Title  . ^  . dy 

.  C*;  Filed  Cc  <£/?.  V  ^ /(7tL.  Examiner’s  Room  No  /  7  $  . 

!': ^ ;  - 

!'?■!'  ‘  / 

.  •  ^  Assignee . 

V  .  VAss’g't  Exec .  Recorded  .  Liber  Page 

f  ■  '  Patent  No.  7.77  C:  CJ  /  ,3,  Issued  C.  I  J,  i<6.  3  6r  .  7  ' 

,J  ;  ACTIONS. 

,  '  '^■^^7f7x?r--^rrrrT-..7^kf^i.Utrlrf.77^3'':.^~/.f.^  J6 . .  afeeu*  -rCZ. 

2....7C^mu^.d^O.  ...^u^..(^.y..7f.p,d  i7 . ;  _ 

j  i  3 . . ' . (Lj^. ^  is . . . 

:  7  ,;  5 20 . 

j.;  (*<.cU.aC. . 7>  £?&£..  21 . : . 

j|;  1  1  ■■■(fytybdidM. 22 . ' . f 

i'  v  . £%&.-.... '.:...‘rT<17 .  23 .  ■  -  .  J 

I:  24 

1  -  •)  1  .tfftrf  25 . . 

j.  V  . .v. . 26 . 

|  '  f2' •:; . • .  27 . ,.; . 1:.,, . . I. 

!.  |3.:....;...: .  28 . .(. . . . : . ;. . 

(l  14-,;.., . .  29 . :,:. . . 

£%5 .  . . . . . . .  30 . .'. . . . . . . . . . 

!:  ‘  >  FRANK  L.  DYER, 

'k.'-'T  "v  " '  ^Cojinsel, 

m%S£  '  I  '_  V>  ORANGE,  new  jersey. 


|  ’  Ccoul  cU^C-l^  L<-tj  ^  /ten*,  ■' 

Qj^J  fb^y 'y-t-Ztury,  C-t^u — .  'VO/-  ‘f£^.<  A  :%<C  (J~ 


^  'a-^L.  7  w/ 


5Vu*4C,_  ;  CL^-? 


.  .  .,  ■'  •  .  w  a-^-w ^  /oo°(L  i 

Jll,l!~L2  Zt'Va//  £Ll-/^/ c 3  <”H*  p^Ui  'V/  t'UL^  ft  ■  '  •"' 

/—$  r  '  ;  i 

t  w Ulg  d^w. 

■  SV  ~U*.  H 

,  ,  ’  ___-.'  "  '  '  /  ■ 

U-lstsA.  .^4.  C-  'I-L^c.f'-  cTl  /^,(*-d-tS?  <L.tf/<-/^-^-  '"»' 

iu-^yC  ^iyUdd  "£,  Ituis/t  ,  *ouJl  ''■»"-  *'■ 

j  H  «-<UJly  r  J-lt-V  A  'At.  '!•  ( 

-h^-r^>  ’  jL~*  e.s-'/L/C^  -  "  </<£-  tT^J'  S^^Cril, 

y-^/C  ,  yC^SZ-P  ■  «->-<-  V  -  , 

:  "4  .0O/J-  ^5'  -/  ,  / 


r-~_i  d— ■■;*££ 


7(V  h)Js ov  )  a •  - p-« 


L-tislx  ~  Aj—isL./.  'n-t-t-zic-C,  ~%ci  ’ 

.  0  a  6  S~.  'J  (’Lf  . 


r-7&-r,  ,  /- 


■  i  c<j,~^^'zz^  >y  ' 

.  £  ^Vvl 

27.  ..  /  77,.  *w-7U7  s-v— ^  <-  ^ 

>«..«. J2L/ud,  ^c.3  ^-^7  r"'^ 

A-/  V^.,.,1..,^  7c_vt^^<-^  ’^/C.  ‘t~e.t~sU-*:}'^'  <”''  7^  /~<^'c' 

S-K-utz:  77c  yL.t'L<'  /u6<isC~.^  t 

-sr'i.,'  ■  Aj/  .^/C, 


y  U^f.  s^'-~<—  ^ — :  /t*z;  /<-?. 

( ^vs-i-  C^-it  C-jc.Csf'  _  (?z£a^i -<-^^—-<-'^~<-^  -^.Z-'A-j/Lt,x_A^iA-£y  7?,  ^t_  ■ 

•  y  //7  0^-^/^.z^.i  /7V  ^  _ 

:  kJ  7  - - <5  /  t,Yc  TTi. 

.  .  ■'..,; \  ':  ,  .  .  ^  ■  «^o s 

i:  ' '  “•  A^A  a  /'-,_ 


T'fc: 


Jtfju,  nJ 

)bMo 


Cujzjc 

'LjCjs  <2-&,*£e__ 


Jyp^  -U.  Uf  wU-  •&$***%  *fc',;: 

^  ^  A'**’'  /5~ 

Jj[V^rU^A  - 


.  ....-huu,  ^  Lf^UZX'  ^  A  ^jLvv,  f 

^\ju^  '  <Lcj\]\JUl*sCU  ' 


(Tf  £u  OuAuXuu^  rn^.,/iu  Iflj  a_  ■ 

■/^^UVu^  ^LixYTLp  ‘^•Aj 'I.-Xi.yh  '  tVv\:-  A  (Vi-WiA  . 

O^fu^U  A  <L  .  r^triwtu^  *j  &U  a^^Mrvu^i.  . 
ai  O^uJxXu  ^  ■ 

oV  ^  U  '  , 

"  ?Aft  1 iw  M '  1  •■ 


^/2/vu.  '  C^fiAslatL  v  d^TwCio 


CwA-C^i  A'l/'CwCvv y. 

.  Ao-Uxuv 


lu-  Atuixuv  ft)  AoXfU^-  (A  i/vv>j 
AU  trl-  ftAAfu-vt'j  ' 

^!Vvtj  ^  ^qaiJa/I  Ou. 


!  ■'  'UaaAZ4  U ^  ^ 

"  kuxdUkj  ,  Ji^Jsif  • 

auuA  V*  €^UA4  '  /Llf^  ^  (Wvto  A'-k^ZZ 
h>  ^t>VvvA__  ^  ■' . '  . 

i^-  6oiXe  '  &<_  f 

tr^h^ 


■  A—  sqAsjJL  jyJ^Ctsz 

'  -UAstk.  tfkslunv*  /d  t  CJLi  i.^ 


cLujuwlr  frhh.^. 


^  O^vfryK^i 

^si. - 


;o  r(Lz tA '  "’” 

eltnsJhtc.  /0  ii,L  (  vj-  -  '  Cy  . 

'j^irtCyl'- 
Ov  Qeni~t^ 

'kojc '  -Atr 

(JtV  A-<i<-(  tft'^UsUMZ.  C^Cif 

y^i.  w.  '  $  ^(^C^to' . > 

t/UK'- 


orhx.  I  3f  "jfuda  . 


4^  /das>AM_,  la-vm^X-j 


i  A. 


"yi^/tc!  '&-0  — 


(LLuArrfty(w»J\  . :  /  a  . 

4Jr  &Mt  (W 

jt^jU  ^  urtt-  y  f 

4  uU^  "  'us&*k. 

A  '  ,  /)-  J  rW/AeSr 


^Wwv  *■/  IaSLLmA 

""y \D^y\x> 


Wir|o  rw  i)f  &&£#*  iUjwttwn-  C^SHriv#^  (V/wji) 
Hot"  ^  lu^fruucix 


Cast-iron  work,  before  being  nickel-plated,  requires  to 
be  first  placed  in  the  potash  bath,  to  remove  grease,  it  is  then 
to  be  well  rinsed  in  cold  water,  and  afterwards  immersed  in  a  pickle 
of  sulphuric  acid  (half-a-pound  of  acid  to  each  gallon  of  water)  un¬ 
til  the  black  scale  usually  found  upon  its  surface  becomes  readily 
removable  by  brushing  with  sand  and  water.  Some  persons  use  powder¬ 
ed  pumice  for  this  purpose,  but  the  author  prefers  sand,  for  the 
reason  that  this  substance,  besides  being  cheaper  than  pumice,  leaves 
ohe  surface  of  the  work  brighter;  and  since  cast-iron  work  is  gen¬ 
erally  required  to  be  left  dead  (that  is,  not  polished)  it  presents 
an  agreeably  bright  appearance,  when  plated,  which  the  pumice  pre¬ 
pared  work  does  not  equal.  In  cast-iron  articles,  the  existence  of 
numerous  "sand-holes"  is  frequently  a  source  of  great  trouble  to 
the  nickel-plater,  inasmuch  as  it  is  impossible  to  obtain  a  deposit 
of  nickel  upon  any  surface  which  is  not  absolutely  free  from  foreign 
matter.  Again,  nickel  has  such  a  great  objection  to  turning  a 
corner,  under  any  circumstances,  that  unless  the  sand-holes  are 
perfectly  clean,  this  metal  will  not  become  deposited  even  in  the  i 
most  trifling  hollows.  It  is  well,  therefore,  in  order  to  obtain  / 
a  deposit  of  nickel  in  the  crevices  referred  to,  to  ascertain  that 
they  are  quite  free  from  non-conducting  matter,  which  may  be  done  * 
by  means  of  a  sharp  steel  point,  or  the  work  may  be  brushed  with  the  : 
steel  wire  brushes  employed  for  this  and  similar  purposes,  and  this 
generally  has  the  effect  of  rendering  slight  hollows  free  from  ob¬ 
jectionable  matter.  / 

-  11 


130.  M.  Klein,  of  St.  Petersburg,  has  succeeded  in  making 

electrotypes  of  iron  as  a  substitute  for  copper  electrotypes,  and 
it  is  said  that  the  improvement  has  been  eminently  successful  in  its 
application  to  bank-note  printing,  &c..  After  having  tried  solu¬ 
tions  of  iron,  but  with  only  partial  success,  M.  Klein  at  last  found 
one  which  answered  his  purpose  thoroughly.  This  bath  consists  of 
a  solution  of  sulphate  of  iron,  from  which  the  iron  is  precipitated 
by  carbonate  of  ammonia.  The  precipitate  is  then  dissolved  in  the 
sulphuric  acid.  The  solution  must  be  evaporated  to  expel  any  free 
acid.  Another  bath  consists  of  equal  parts  of  chlorate  of  ammonia 
and  sulphate  of  iron.  Both  these  baths  must  be  used  as  concentrated 
as  possible.  An  iron  anode  is  to  be  employed  exposing  about  wight 
times  more  surface  than  the  copper  cathode  which  is  to  be  coated 
presents.  After  being  worked  sometime,  the  deposit  became  faulty, 
which  was  found  to  be  due  to  the  presence  of  acid  in  the  bath.  This 
acidity  was  proved  oto  be  due  to  the  anode  not  supplying  the  solu¬ 
tion  with  the  proper  equivalent  of  iron-..to  replace  that  which  has 
been  deposited,  h.  Klein  then  introduced  a  copper  anpde,  as  well  as 
an  iron  anode,  and  the  bath  soon  became  neutral  again,  and  the  de¬ 
position  was  more  uniform.  (The  surface  of  anode  must  be  extensive) 
The  colour  of  the  deposit  dull  grey,  and  somewhat  rough,  probably 
owing  to  the  air-bubbles  formed  during  the  process.  The  metal  de¬ 
posited  was  exceedingly  hard,  being  nearly  equal  to  hardened  steel. 
When  heated  to  cherry  redness  it  became  malleable,  and  as  easy  to 
engrave  upon  as  soft  steel.  The  electrotype  plates  thus  formed  are 
said  to  be  very  durable  -  far  more  so  than  copper,  and  hence  their 
importance  in  bank-note  printing.  The  deposited  iron  is  permanently 


magnetic.  Doubtless  K.  Klein  will  improve  upon  his  present  pro¬ 
cess  in  course  of  time,  but  so- far  it  appears  to  be  a  perfectly 
practical  process  -  at  least,  in  -his  hands  -  and  the  Russian  Govern¬ 
ment  have  promptly  turned  the  invention  to  account. 


Petition. 


Go  tbe  Commissioner  of  patents : 

13our  petitioner ,  THOMAS  A.  ED1SOU,  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  residing  and  having  hie  post-office  address  at  Dlewellyn 
Park,  Orange,  Essex  County,  Me <>/  Jersey, 

Prnfis  tbat  letters  patent  mas  be  granteb  to  btm  for  tbe  improved  PROCESS  OP 
DUPLICATING  PHO  HO  GRAPH  RECORDS 


set  fortb  in  tbe  annereb  specfttcation ;  anb  be  berebg  appoints  jfraijlt  X.  S^er  (IRegls*, 
tratlon  IRo.  560),  of  Eblson  Xaboratorg,  ©range,  Hew  3erse»,  bis  attorney,  wltb  full 
power  of  substitution  anb  revocation,  to  prosecute  tbls  application,  to  mate  altera* 
tions  anb  amendments  therein,  to  receive  tbe  patent,  anb  to  transact  all  business  In 
tbe  patent  office  connecteb  therewith. 


S  P  !J  C  in  C  A  T1  0  !!  , 
TO  7JHOM  XT  MAY  CONCERN:- 


BE  IT  KNOv/N  that  I,  Thomas  A.  Edi¬ 
son,  of  blewellyn  Park,  Orange,  in  the  County  of  Essex, 

State  of  New  Jersey,  have  invented  certain  improvements  in 
the  Process  of  Duplicating  Phonograph  Records  (Case  No. 
1,119),  of  which  the ’following  is  a  description: 

My  invent'd  on  relates  to  an  improved  process  for 
duplicating  phonograph  records  from  matrices  .  or  molds,  and 
my  object  is  to  provide  a  process  for  the  purpose  wherein 
the  necessity  is  overaWe  for  making  a  large  number  of  ori¬ 
ginal  masters  when  a  plurality  of  matrices'  or  molds  of  the 
same  selection  requires  tto  be  made,  whereby  1  am  enabled  to 
reduce  tile  expense  of  the  \operati  on.  In  carrying  my  inven¬ 
tion  into  effect  1  proceed  Substantially  as. f allows: 

A  suitable  master  record  is  first  made  on  a  record 
ing  machine  having  a  specially  coarse  thread  feed-screw,  and 
If  the  master  is  sufficiently  perfect  for  the  purpose,  a 
mold  or  matrix  is  made  therefrom  by  any  y/ell  known  process, 
as,  for  example,  that  indicated  in  my  patent,  No.  713,209, 
of  November  11,  1902.  The  process  by  which  this  matrix  or 
mold  is  made  is  preferably  one  by  whioh  the  matrix  or  mold 
will  be  provided  with  a  non- oxidizing  record  surfaoe,  such 
as  gold  or  nickel,  so  that  it  will  be  very  permanent.  From 
the  matrix  or  mold  thus  made  1  obtain  any  desired  number, 
say  a  dozen  or  more,  of  duplicate  records  or  submasters  by 
any  suitable  process.  For  example,  a  blank  may  be  shaved 
very  true  so  as  to  fit-  accurately  within  the  matrix  or 
mold,  and  be  then  expanded  into  engagement  with  the  record 
surface  of  the  matrix  or  mold  by  heat  and  pressure,  as  1 


(1) 


I  describe  in  my  Said  patent;  or,  instead,  a  molten  wax-like 
material  may  be  cant  in  the  matrix  or  mold,  as  1  describe  in 
my  patent,  Ho.  607  ,662,  of" February  5,  1901;  or,  finally, 
the  matrix  or  mold  may  be  dipped  in  a  suitable  molten,  co- 
agulaDle,  wax-like  material,  which  forms  a  coagulated  layer 
of  the  desired  thickness  thereon,  as  described  in  patent, 

Ho.  683,615,  granted  October  1,  1901,  to  Miller  and  Ayls- 
worth.  By  whatever  process  that  may  be  followed  an  accurate 
subma3ter  will  be  secured,  the  bore  of  7/hich  need  not  be 
finished.  1  aim  to  secure  submastb'rs  in  this  Wy  which 
shall  correspond  accurately  with  masters  now  obtained  by 
recording  in  the  .first  instance  thereon  in  special  recording 
machines;  and,  consequently,  the  original  or  main  mold  or 
matrix  should  be  much  longer  than  the  record  which  it,  car¬ 
ries,  and  the  pitch  of  the  record  groove  therein  should  be 
so  selected  that  viien  the  submasters  have  contracted  longi¬ 
tudinally,  their  pitch  shall  correspond  with  that  now  used 
in  masters  made  directly  in  recording  machines.  This  latter 
pitch,  wl.th  the  materials  now  used,  is  ninety-eight  and  two- 
thirds  threads  per  inch,  but  the  pitch  will  vary  with  the 
composition  employed  and  with  the  process  followed,  as  to 
temperature,  manipulations  etc. 

Having  obtained^  number  of  submasters  in  this 
way  which  correspond  accurately  with  masters  as  now  obtained 
r|^^r'Tfed:lre0tly  °n  the  blan3£  in  a  8uitable  recording 
machine  ,^4-ma3cg--a-ttambcr  of  suhmrftthrHSr^^  sub¬ 

masters  by  any  suitable  process,  for  instance,  those  indi¬ 
cated  in  my  patent,  Ho.  713,209,  above  referred  to,  and  from 
these  submolds  I  proceed  to  obtain  duplicates  in  the  usual 


way,  as  indicated  in  the  several  patents  to  which  atten¬ 
tion  .has  been  directed.  The  duplicates  so  obtained,  when 
finished  on  the  interior  and  ends,  are  commercially  salable 
duplicates,  comparing  favorably  with  those  now  secured  in 


the  art  from  a  matrix  or  mold  made  fro/n  a  master  obtained 
directly  by  recording  in  the  first  instance  in  a  special 
recording  machine .  These  duplicates,  when  they  reach  their 
normal  temperature,  will  possess  the  standard  pitch  of 


thread  of  one  hundred  per  inch,  and  v/ill,  therefore,  ho 
capable  of  effective  use  in  standard  reproducing  machines 
bof  the  phonograph  type.  (L 

Having  now  described  my  'invention,  what  I  claim 
as  new  therein  and  desire  to  secure  by  letters  patent  is 
as  follows: 

‘.-X-  0. 

y0'  A  process  of  making  duplicate  sound  records,  which 

conai  in  first  obtaining  a  suitable  master  having  a  very 


eoarse  pi^ch  of  r^°Pr,d  groove,  in  forming  a  matrix  or  mold 
therefrom.Vn  .securing  a  plurality  of  submasters  from  the 
matrix  oj;  mold  so  secured,  in  making  a  plurality  of 
submolds  or  suborn  trices  from  the  submasters,  and  in  Becm 
from  the  submolds\or  submatricesAduplicate  sound  records  of 
standard  pitch,  substantially  as  and  for  the  purposes  set 
forth. 

2.  A  process  of  ma&Uig  duplicate  sound  records,  whioh| 
consists  in  making  an  origiiml  master  record  of  abnormal 
length  and  of  abnormally  coarseVLtch,  in  securing  a  main 
matrix  or  mold  therefrom,  In  obtalnS-if;  a  number  of  submas¬ 
ters  from  the  main  matrix  or  mold  and\f  less  pitch,  in  se-. 
curing  a  number  of  submatrioes  or  submold's,  from  the  sub¬ 
masters,  and  in  obWiS^ffro m  the  submat  ricks  or  submolds 
duplicate  phonograph  records  of  standard  pitch /Wstantial- 
ly.as  set  forth.  ’  N, 


(3) 


trbis  specification  signeb  anb  witnesseb  tbls 


bap  of 


State  Of  Kow  JerBey, 

Count?  Of  Essex, 

TIIOMAG  A.  EDI  SO  If  .  tbe  above=itatneb 

petitioner,  being  buls  sworn,  beposes  anb  sap3  tbat  be  is  a  citizen 
of  tbe United.  States,  and  a  resident  of  Llewellyn  Park,  Orange, 
in  the  County  of  Essex  and  State  of  Hew  Jersey; 

tbat  be  peril?  believes  bimself  to  be  tbe  original,  first  anb  sole  inventor  of  tbe 

IMPROVED  PROCESS  OF  DUDL1CAT1HG  PHONO GRAPH  RECORDS 


beserfbeb  anb  clafmeb  in  tbe  annejeb  specincntion ;  tbat  be  boes  not  [mow  anb  boes 
not  believe  tbat  tbe  same  was  ever  Imown  or  useb  bp  others  in  tbe  Vlnlteb  States  of 
Hmerica  before  bis  invention  or  biscoverp  thereof ;  or  patenteb  or  bescribeb  fit  anp 
prfnteb  publication  in  tbe  Ulniteb  States  of  Hmerica  or  anp  foreign  couutrp  before  bis 
invention  or  biscoverp  thereof,  or  more  than  two  pears  prior  to  tbfs  application ;  or 
in  public  use  or  on  sale  in  tbe  Ulniteb  States  for  more  than  two  pears  prior  to  tbfs 
application,  anb  tbat  no  application  for  patent  upon  safb  invention  bas  been  fileb  bp 
biin  or  bis  legal  representatives  or  assigns  (it  anp  foreign  countrp  more  than  seven 
months  prior  to  tbe  filing  of  tbis  application. 


Sworn  to  anb  subscribeb  before  me  tbis  bap  of  dfensz'  190  3 


2—200. 


J  Jj.  ?|  ^  Paper  Nj2Lj.ItuJ.ac.ti  an. 

'  application  should  glvo.tho  serial  number, 

department  of  the  Interior,  ''[/>> 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

Washington,  d.  c.  itoaen'ber  'S;190'6.  1 


Thomas  A.  Mis  on, 

Caro  yrank  T<.  Hyor  > 

Alio  on  IicUioraiory, 

6  range,  How  Jersoy. 


U.  S.  PRTEHT  OFFICE, 

DEC  3  1903 
M  AiLE  D. 


uiication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application. 


for  Proa  ties  of  rjupliisXti  hg  Phonograph  Records, filed  Hov.  3,19ns. 
serial  number  179,7.1(5. 


.  .Commissioner  of  Patents. 


i  This  application  has  boon  duly  examined. 

It  ifi  quits  common  to  produo  o  an  enlarged  copy  of  an 
original  record.  At  tout  ion  is  called  /o  the  following  patents: 

/  r 

Alison' b  rlngllsh  Patent  ^1644  of  1878, Pic.  £9, Graph. , 

I  and 

Ametjlfejr" "14,1895, -fSSG, P.lB  . 

It  is  held  that,  it  cannot  constitute  pa  tenth  bio  inven¬ 
tion  to  make'  a "matris  from  such  tin  enlarged  record  aid  by  any  of 
the  well  known  duplicating' processes  produce  a  copy  of  the  enlarg¬ 
ed  record  In  material  that  would  nqdessarily  shrink  and  produce 
a  record  sm  11  or’  than  the' enlarged  record  but  equal  to, if  pot’ 
larger,  than  the”  original  redord. 

Tlie  claims  are  rejected  for  rant  of  patentable  invention, 
in  view  of  the'Vat3nt8  aited,’  and  what  applicant  refers  to  in  the 
epeoif  ibattaa  as .  being  old  ways  of  duplicating.  - 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  QPPIOE. 


ThomaB  A.  Edison 

Improved  Process  of  Duplicating 
Phonograph  Records 

Piled  November  3,  1S03. 

Serial  No. ,179,716  , 

HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS. 

Sir:  — 

Replying  to  Offioe  action  of  December 
3,  1903,  please  amend  the  above  entitled  case  as  follows: 

Claim  1,  line  4,  change  "securing"  to  "molding" 
Same  claim,  line  6,  change  "securing"  to  "mold¬ 
ing"  . 

Claim  2,  line  4,  change  "obtaining"  to  "mold¬ 
ing".  : 

Same  claim  line  7,  change  "obtaining"  to  "mold¬ 
ing"  .  I 

The  claims  are  believed  to  be  patentable  over 
the  references  for  the  following  reasons.  The  invention 
set  forth  in  the  claims  is  entirely  different  from  anything 
suggested  in  the  references.  The  present  invention  re¬ 
lates  entirely  to  the  duplication  of  sound  records  by  a 
series  of  molding  processes.  The  patents  cited  do  not  dis¬ 
close  any  molding  processes  but  merely  meohanical  means 
for  securing  copies  of  records.  In  both  the  patents  the 
vibrations  are  amplified  in  the  duplicate,  that  is,  they 
are  greater  in  the  duplicate  than  in  the  original.  In 
applicant's  method,  there  is  no  such  amplification*  In 
both  of  the  patents  cited,  the  process  of  duplication  des- 
°0nsiBts  of  a  Binsle  stePi  th*t  is,  the  production 
°fV directly  from  an  ariginal  by  a  mechanical  connection 


-1- 


■between  them.  In  the  prooosses  claimed,  there  are  a 
series  of  Btepe.  Euthermore ,  in  the  said  patents  only- 
one  duplicate  is  made  from  the  original,  whereas  in  the 
processes  claimed  a  plurality  of  duplicates  (sub-masters), 
are  obtained  from  the  original  and  duplicates  are  then 
obtained  from  the  sub-masters,  in  each  case,  by  forming 
a  matrix  or  mold  and  in  molding  therefrom.  The  Examiner 
states  that  "it  is  quite  pommon  to  produce  an  enlarged 
copy  of  an  original  repord".  According  to  applicant's 
invention,  no  enlarged  copy  is  produced.  The  first  copy 
(sub-master)  is  smaller  than  the  original  and  the  second 
copy  (duplicate  record  of  standard  pitch)  is  smaller  than 
the  sub-master. 

An  allowance  of  the  claims  is  respectfully 
fe'cte'iclted  }•, 

Thomas  A.  Edison 
By 


His  Attorney 


Orange ,  Nev/  Jersey 
June  /C,  1904. 


2—2G0. 


DlV.  3S  ,  Roor 

tMmtnunitaUona  eheuld  be  eddneeed  pj  «H«  7)» 


United  States  Patent  Office, 


Ih“',AVaar‘“SUJ,.^,  MumnwErA 

Edison  laboratory,  JUU  7  1904 

Orange, Haw  jersey. 

mailed. 

Please  find  below  a  communication  from,  the  EXAM  HER  in  charge  of  your  application, 

far  Process  of  implicating  Ph<nograj>h  Records, filod  I-Tov.  3,1903, 
#179,716  .  • 


R  J,  m&L: 


This  action  is  in  response  to  the  amendment  filsd  the 


The  claims,  as  amended,  it  is  believed,  define  merely 
duplicating  by  tho  well  toaown  molding  process,  tho  duplicate  -y/ 
formed  by  tho  process  in  applicant's  patent, seby.  8*1 901, #667, 662, 
(181-16)  and  it  must  be  held  that  no  invention  can  be  displayed 
in  duplicating  from  a  dupl  icate  instead  of  dupl  ioating  from  tho  ' 
original  record,  such  matter  mtom  having  been  referred  to  in 
patent  to  Edison, Sept,  11,1900 ,#657,587,  (181-16). 

The  claims  are  rejected. 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  0PP1CE, 


Thomas  A,  Edison 

IMPROVED  PROCESS  OP  DUPLICATING 
PHONOGRAPH  RECORDS 

Piled  November  3,  1903 
Serial  No.  179,716. 


Room  No. 


379. 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS 
SIR:- 

Replying  to  Office  action  of  July  7, 
1904,.  please  amend  the  above  entitled  case  as  follows: 

.  •  Page  1,  rewrite  the  paragraph  beginning  -  "My 

invention",  as  follows: 


My  invention  relates  to  an  improved  process  for 

)  producing  duplicate  phonograph  records  from  matrioes  or 
molds.  Heretofore  suoh  reooidB  have  been  produced  by  f 
first  making  a  suitable  master,  forming  a  matrix  or 
mold  around  Baid  master,  removing  Baid  master  and  then 
molding  the  duplicates  successively  by  means  of  said  mold' 
%iile  it  is  sometimes  possible  to  remove  the  master  witi. 
<|  out  injury  from  the  mold  so  that  it  can  be  used  for  the 

I  production  of  another  or  other  molds,  it  requires  ex¬ 
treme  oare  and  there  is  always  danger  of  injury  to  the 

surface  of  the  master,  whereby  it  becomes  unfit  for 
further  use.  Inasmuch  bb  the  delicate  surface  of  the 
mold  thus  produced  almost  inevitably  becomes  aor&iohed 
or  marred  at  sometime  during  continued  use,  the  life 


of  the  mold  is  limited  and  therefore  the  number  of  du¬ 
plicates  whloh  oan  be  produced  from  the  mold  is  limited. 


If  one  dQBires  t4>  obtain  additional  duplicates,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  construct  another  mold,  and  if  the 
master  has  been  injured  or  destroyed  it  will,  of  course, 
be  neoeseary  to  produce  anotjier  master.  This  in  many 
cases  will  be  impossible,  because  one  may  not  be  able 
to  secure  the  services  of  the  person  or  persons  who 
produced  the  original  master,  their  voices  may  have 
changed,  or  other  reasons  may  prevent  the  production 
of  a  second  master. 

Furthermore,  it  frequently  happens  that 
there  is  a  great  demand  for  a  particular  selection  which 
it  is  impossible  to  fill  by  the  production  of  dupli¬ 
cates  from  a  single  mold,  because  of  the  time  necessar¬ 
ily  consumed  in  producing  each  dvplioate.  Xn  order , 
therefore,  to  overcome  these  difficulties,  it  has  been 
the  practice  in  this  art  to  produce  several  master  re¬ 
cords  at  the  same  time  which  shall  be  as  nearly  alike 
as  possible,  so  that  a  plurality  of  molds  can  be  pro¬ 
duced,  one  from  each  master.  This  prooess  is  objection¬ 
able,  however,  because  the  suspense  of  producing  master 
records  of  artistic  quality  is  very  great,  requiring 
a  large  number  of  trials,  sinoe  the  slightest  blast  or 
other  flaw  in  the  reoord  necessitates  the  discarding 
thereof.  Furthermore,  it  is  impossible  to  produoe  two 
masters  which  are  exactly  alike. 

The  object  of  the  present  invention  is  a 
process  whereby  a  praotioally  unlimited  number  of  sound 
records  can  be  produced,  each  of  whioh  is  a  duplicate 
of  a  single  master j  whereby  any  desired  number  of  mold* 
oan  be  produoed  at  any  time  for  molding  said  records; 
whereby  any  desired  number  of  exaotly  similar  duplicate 


V  V 

\ 


/  records  can  tie  molded  simultaneously;  and  whereby  a 
1  permanent  and  enduring  reoord  of  the  master  may  he  ob- 
|  (  tained  and  preserved  for  the  /.future  production  of  such 
/  molds  and  records.  In  oarrying  my  invention  into  ef- 
I  feet,  1  proceed  substantially  as  follov/s : 

1  Page  Z,  line  26,  cancel  -  "I  make  a  number  of 
submolds  or  matrices  of",  arid  insert  in  place  thereof  — 
Sthe  main  matrix  or  mold  may  be  filed  away.  It  will  not 
\be  required  for  further  use  during  the  life  of  the  sub- 
jmolds  whose  production  1  will  now  describe,  but  will  be 
/ available  at  any  future  time  for  the  production  of 
j  additional  submasters  from  which  submolds  may  be  made. 
\The  submoldB  or  fggtKig,es  are  produced  from  - 


Page  5,  insert  after  line  7  the  following: 

It  is  obvious  that  according  to  my  invention  the 
number  of  duplicate  phonograph  records  which  com  be 
obtained  from  a  single  master  is  multiplied.  That  1b  to 
say,  suppose  that  the  life  of  eaoh  mold  is  limited  to 
one  thousand  operations  -  then,  according  to  the  methods 
heretofore  known,  we  oan  produce  only  one  thousand 
duplicate  copies  of  the  original  master,  assuming  the 
same  to  have  been  destroyed  in  making  the  molds.  This 
is  the  limit  to  the  number  of  duplicates  y/hich  oan  be 
produoed  from  the  master  in  question  and  therse  duplicates 
can  only  be  produoed  suooessiyely.  Aooording  to  my  in¬ 
vention,  hov/ever,  it  will  be  possible  to  produoe  a 
thousand  Bub-masters  from  the  main  mold,to  produce  a  sub*, 
mold  from  eaoh  sub-master,  thereby  obtaining  a  thousand 
sub-molds,  and  then  produoe  from  these  subBsubdds  one 
million  duplicate  sound  records,  eaoh  of  which  is  a  copy 
3. 


V 


1/ 

I 


of  the  original  master,  and  in  the  some  space  of  time 
that  one  thousand  records  were  formerly  produced. 

Another  advantage  of  my  invention  is  that  the 
molding  of  the  sub-masters  can  be  done  with  great  care 
by  the  most  skillful  workmen  so  that  the  main  mold  will 
not  bo  injured  and  the  molding  from  the  sub-molds  oan  be! 
done  very  rapidly,  without  much  care,  or  by  comparative# 
unskilled  persons,  because  a  sub-mold  oan  be  replaced 
at  any  time  without  very  great  expense. 

rcAf  . 

Rewrite  the  claims  as  follows:  V'' 

*’(f7  ^  **'* 

1.  The  process  of  multiplying  sound!  records,  which 
consists  in  producing  a  suitable  master1,  forming  a 
matrix  or  mold  therefrom,,  molding  a  plurality  of  sub¬ 
masters  from  said  mold)  forming  a  sub-matrix  or  sub-  t'  ■ 
mold  from  each  of  said  sub-masters and  then  molding 
duplicate  sound  records  from  each  of  said  sub-matrices 
or  sub-molds,  whereby  a  plurality  of  duplicate  sound 
records  can  be  obtained  simultaneously  and  the  produc¬ 
tion  thereof  is  not  limited  by  the  life  of  the  molds 
innwhich  they  are  formed,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

2,  The  procesls  of  multiplying  sound  records,  which 
consists  in  prodttcung  a  suitable  master  having  a  record 
groove  of  abnormally  coarse  pitch,  forming  a  matrix  of 
moiaitherefEcm^mcllsins  a '.plurality  of  sub-masterB  of 
smaller  pitch  than  BVid  master  from  said  mold,  forming 
a  sub-matrix  or  sub-riold  from  each  of  said  sub-masters 
and  then  molding  duplicate  sound  recordB  of  standard  Aid 
pitch  from  each  of  said  sub-matrices  or  sub-molds,  ^ 
whereby  a  plurality  of ^duplicate  sound  records  oan  be  iH 
obtained  simultaneouslyNand  the  production  thereof  is 
not  limited  by  the  life  \f  the  molds  in  which  they  are 
formed,  substantially  as  fcet  forth. 

C&**- Sj  ‘>1L0Cs%5> 

REMARKS 

This  case  haB  been  amended  in  order  to  more 
|  clearly  set  forth  the  patentable  novelty  of  the  invention. 

ffihe  invention  is  a  process  of  multiplying  sound 
reoorda,  and  as  explained  in  the  specification,  the  inven¬ 
tion  makes  it  possible  to  obtain,  for  example,  a  million 
duplicate  secordB  within  the  same  period  of  time  that  a 
4. 


thousand  records  ware  formerly  produced,  assuming  that 
the  master  is  destroyed  in  making  the  mold.  There  1b  no 
suggestion  in  the  prior  art  of  any  means  by  which  this 
result  can  be  accomplished. 

In  Edison  Patent  Eo.  657,527  cited,  a  metallic 
duplicate  is  produced  by  electro-deposition  upon  the  in¬ 
terior  of  a  matrix  in  order  that  copies  may  be  made  there¬ 
from  by  mechanical  means,  and  on  account  of  the  hardnesB 
or  durability  of  the  metal,  the  number  of  copies  whioh 
can  be  made  is  increased.  J.f  the  metallic  record  is  con¬ 
sidered  to  be  the  equivalent  of  the  sub-master  of  the  pres* 
ent  application,  the  disclosure  of  the  patent  fails  as  a 
reference,  because  only  one  such  copy  is  produced,  where¬ 
as  according  to  the  present  invention  as  described  and  claim¬ 
ed  a  plurality  of  sub-masters  are  produced  and  it  is  only 
by  virtue  of  this  fact  that  a  multiplication  of  the  final 
copies  is  obtained. 

Furthermore,  in  the  reference  the  metallic  copy 
is  not  produced  by  molding  but  by  electro-deposition  and 
it  is  neoessary  th  destroy  the  matrix  in  order  to  obtain 
the  copy.  Therefore,  it  is  impossible  to  obtain  a  plural¬ 
ity  of  sub-masters  by  any  means  disclosed  in  this  patent. 

The  remaining  reference  failB  to  anticipate  the 
claims  since  it  does  not  disclose  any  means  for  multiply¬ 
ing  copies.  In  eaoh  case  the  duplicate  must  be  produced 
successively  and  their  production  is  limited  by  the  life 
of  the  mold  in  which  they  are  formed. 

Applicant's  invention  is  now  clearly  set  forth 
and  differentiated  from  the  prior  art  in  the  specifica¬ 
tion  and  claims. 

5. 


The  claims  are  -believed  to  -be  patentable  for 
the  reasons  sot  forth,  and  an  allowance  of  the  oase  is 
recpooti'ully  solicited. 


THOMAS  A.  -EDISON 

Hie  Attorney. 


Orange,  Now  Jersey 
June  v  1905 . 


2-260. 


D  i  v - 2>5  Room _ 3.7  9 


DEPARTMENT  0 


Paper  No. . J  * 


United  States  Patent  Office, 


Thomas  A.  jtdison, 

Onrg  tfnwifc  %  hyer, 

ddisori  he.  bora  to  ry , 
Orange  ,!few  J  ora  ey. 


■  c„  July  8l)t.lS06. 


I S.  POTT  OFFICE  ■ 

JUL  25  1905 

MAILED. 


p  Please  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application , 

for  Prpeosa  of  implicating  Phonog-aph  Re  oorit*,  filed  JTov.  3, 
..1903  ,ao rial  number  179,71'j. 

&.J, 

_ _ _ . _  Commissionerjffiatmt?. 


Tills  act Ion  is  in  response  to  the  'amendment  filed  tho 
24th'  ultimo. 

Y/hat  urr  Humt  terms  the  "aub  mo. st  or"  Is  merely  the 
usual  duplicate  record  that  is  commonly  sold  ux>on  the  market. 

Ap pllo ant  desires  a  patent  for  duplioating  or  multiplying  these' 
oommonly  sold  duplioate  records. 

As  has  been  before  stated,  there  san  be  no  in-ventlon 
displayed  in  multiplying  or  duplioating  a  dunlloate  in  stead  of 
duplioating  an|  original  and  the  claims  are  aooordlngly.  rejected 
for  want  of  invention  in  view  of  the  patents  before  cited. 


1 


UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPJiTCE, 


Thomas  A.  Edison  ) 

I  IMPROVED  PROCESS  OP  DUPLICAT-  ) 
ING  PHONOGRAPH  RECORDS 


I  Eiled  November  3,  1903 
I  Serial  No.  179,716 


)  Room  No.  379 


i 


HONORABLE  COKHJ  SSI  ONER  OP  PATENTS: 

SI  R  ; 

Replying  to  Office  action  of 
July  25th,  1905,  a  reconsideration  is  respectfully  re¬ 
quested.  The  Examiner  is  mistaken  when  he  states  that 
the  element  termed  by  applicant  the  "sub-master"  is  merely 
the  usual  duplicate  record  that  is  sold  upon  the  market 
As  a  matter  of  fact  the  sub-master  is  the  device  from  which 
the  mold  is  made  by  which  the  duplicates  are  afterwards  pro 
duced.  These  sub-masters  are  never  sold  and  in  fact 
would  be  useless  for  purposes  of  reproduction  in  an  ordinarj) 
phonograph  because  the  pitch  of  the  record  groove  does  not 
correspond  with  the  pitch  of  the  feed  screw. 

The  Examiner  holds  that  there  is  no  invention  in 
duplicating  a  duplicate  instead  of  duplicating  an  original. 
It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  claims  are  limited 
to  molding  a  plurality  of  sub-masters  from  a  single  mold, 
forming  a  sub-matrix  from  eaoh  of  said  sub-masters,  and 
then  molding  duplicate  sound  recordB  from  each  of  said 
sub-matrices.  That  is,  the  process  provides  for  a 
multiplication  of  copies  which  would  not  be  obtained  by  merj 
ly  duplicating  a  duplicate.  Eurthermore  there  would  be 
no  use  of  this  invention  in  merely  duplicating  one  of  the 
commonly  sold  duplicate;  records,  beoause  one  must  take  a 


1. 


plurality  of  identical  reoords  and  make  a  mold  from  each 
of  the  said  reoords,  and  produce  duplicate  records  from 
each  of  these  molds.  As  long  as  one  confines  himself  to 
the  use  of  one  mold  for  producing  each  hind  of  record, 
there  is  no  multiplication  of  copies  in  the  sense  in  which 
this  word  is  used  in  the  present  application. 

The  claims  appear  to  he  entirely  novel  and  an 
allowance  thereof  is  therefore  respectfully  solicited. 


Orange,  New  Jersey 
July  f ;  1906 . 


THOMAS  A.  NMSON 


By 


his  attorney . 


2. 


Paper  No . < 


ins  rc8pe^rt?g\5l^ 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 


WASHINGTON,! 


ThoiKHt,  A.  Udison, 

oaro  Pranft  h,  J)ynr, 
Miaou  Laboratory, 
Orung»  ,11.3V' 


■  'm  OFFICE,. 

XSjL  Ll 

*  JUL  27 

M  A  I  L  E  '  V^l 


1% 


Plcascfitid  below  ticominiuiicatiori  front  the -EXAMINER-  in  charge,  of  ycturapplicatioTi^  t 

for  Procsee  of  implicating  Phone^aph  Records* filed  -ffowi 


'■$J,  (ML- 


This  notion  is  Itt:  response  v,o  the  argument  f  J.l*d  the 
loth  in* twit . 

The  examiner  has  carefully  con&idered  applicant's  Argu¬ 
ment  and  has  noted  that  applicant  hue  argued  that  the  sub-masters 
are  of  a  character  unanitedfor  use  in  practical  operation  ia 
reproducing,  hut  it  is  also  noted,  that  neither  of  the  claims  define 
this  characteristic  of  the  sub-musters,  nor  are  the  sub-masters 
defined  in  the  claims  in  any  way  to  differentiate  them  from  dupli¬ 
cates  made  in  regular  duplicate  record  material.  Whether  a 
plurality  of  sub-masters  or  duplicates  are  made  and  then  duplicates 
made  from  the  plurality  of sub-wasters,  is  immaterial  in  a  patentable 
whether  one  or  a  plurality  be  made  raises  the  question  of 
degree  only .  As  the  claims  'Are  now-drawn  ,the_  former  ground  of" 
rejection  la  believed  to  be  rertinent  end  it  ie  repeated  and  made 
final  .  " . '  \  'll  * 

A  drawing. illustrating  the  alleged  invention  in  requested 
to  bo  filed. 


TOUTED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE. 


ThoraaB  A.  Edison  ) 

IMPROVED  PROCESS  OP  DUPLICATING) 

PHONOGRAPH  RECORDS  : 

Piled  November  3rd,  1903  • 

Serial  No.  179,716  \ 


Room  No.  379 


Honorable  CommiBsioner  of  Patents, 

Sir  :  — 


In  response  to  Office] 
letter  of  July  27th,  1906,  pleaBe  amend  as  follows: 

Cancel  claim  2  and  substitute  the  following: 

2.  The  prooess  of  multiplying  Bound  recordB, 
whioh  o ons is ts  in  producing  a  suitable  master  having  a 
record  groove  of  abnormally  coarse  pitch,  forming  a 
matrix  or  mold  therefrom,  molding  from  said  matrix  or  mold 
i  plurality  of  sub-masters  of  less  pitch  than  that  of 
said  master,  forming  a  sub-matrix  or  sub-mold  from  each 
of  said  sub-masters,  and  then  molding  from  said  sub-ma¬ 
trices  or  sub-molds  duplicate  sound  records  of  standard 
pitch,  which  is  lass  than  jrhat  of  the  sub-masters,  whereby 
a  plurality  of  duplicate  Bound  records  can  be  obtained 
simultaneously  from  the  same  master  and  the  production 
thereof  is  not  limited  to  the  life  of  the  molds  in  whioh 
they  are  directly  formed,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


1. 


3.  The  process  of  multiplying  sound  records, 
which  o  one is t a  in  producing  a  suitable  master  of  ooarse 
pitch,  forming  a  matrix  or  mold  therefrom  of  the  same  pitoh, 
molding  a  plurality  of  sub-maBters  from  said  mold  of  a 
smaller  pitch,  forming  a  sub-matrix  or  sub-mold  from  each  oi 
said  sub-masters  and  of  the  same  pitch,  and  then  molding 
duplicate  sound  records  of  a  still  smaller  pitch  from  each 
of  said  sub-matrices  or  sub-moldB,  whereby  a  plurality  of 
duplicate  sound  records  can  be  obtained  simultaneously 
and  the  production  thereof  is  not  limited  by  the  life  of 
the  mold  in  which  they  are  formed,  substantially  as  set 
forth. 

REMARKS  . 

The  above  claims  have  been  formulated  in  view 
of  the  Examiner's  action  of  July  27,  1906,  and  they  are 
thought  to  embody  the  suggestions  contained  therein. 

It  is  hoped  that  op  reconsideration,  claim  1,  whioh 
applicant , for  the  reasons  repeatedly  set  forth  heretofore, 
believes  to  be  patentable,  may  also  be  allowed. 

It  is  requested  that  the  Examiner  point  cut  aB 
definitely  as  he  can,  the  nature  of  the  drawing  which  he 
thinks  should  be  filed  in  this  case.  It  is  not  clear  to 
applicant  hov;  the  oase  could  be  properly  illustrated  by 
meanB  of  a  drav/ing. 

Respeotfully  submitted. 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON 

By 

/  <f 

Hie  Attorney. 

Orange,  New  Jersey 
April  /<£  1907. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  May  J,  .i  p07. 


Thomus  A.  Sdicon, 

Oare  Branls  ft,  Dyer* 
Edison  laboratory. 
Orange,  Hew  Jersey 


U,  S.  PATE!!?  mi 

MAT  1  1907 
MAILED. 


Plcaiio  find  below  a  communication  from  the  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 

for  Process  of  Duplicating  Phonograph  Records, filed  Hoy.  3, 

1903, serial  number  170,710,  .  * 

&J, 


?his  action  is  responsive  to  the  amendment  filed  April 


A  diagram  drawn  in  principle  like  that  shown  in  patent 
of  Hoyt,  at  a!., Jan,  8,1906, ■  "#908*848,  (181-17),  it  is  believed, 
would  properly  illustrate  the  steps  of  the  present  alleged  invention 
!Tho  examiner  has  again  carefully  considered  the  claim  as 


formerly  present edfend  has  carefully  considered  the  two  elates 
presented  by  the  onendment  noted  above  . 

The  examiner1  can  see  nothing  of  patentable  invention 
however,  in  applicant's  claimed  process  for  reasons  before  stated 
and  repeated  and  accordingly  the  claims  must  be  rejected  . 


TOUTED  STATES  PATENT  OPPICB. 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

S'  : 

Room  No.  379. 

Piled  November  3,  1903, 

Serial  No.  179,716. 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS, 

SIR;- 

Replying  to  Office  action  of  May  1, 
1907,  a  drawing  has  been  filed  in  accordance  with  the 
Examiner's  requirement. 

It  is  requested  that  the  specification  be  amended 
as  follows 

After  the  matter  inserted  after  line  7  of  page 
3  by  amendment  of  June  24,  1905,  insert  the  following':  - 

Reference  is  hereby  made  to  the  accompanying; 
drawing  which  shows  diagi-arnmatically  a  multiplication  of 
duplicate  sound  reoords  (standard  pitch)  from  a  single 
master  record,  according  to  the  process  herein  describe^ 
and  claimed. - 

REMARKS. 

The  specification  fully  sets  forth  the  advantages 
of  the  present  invention  over  the  prior  art,  and  the  ' 
olaimB  are  limited  to  the  speoifio  steps  which  are  neces¬ 
sary  to  secure  such  advantages.  The  process  claimed  ap¬ 
pears  to  be  clearly  novel,  and  its  advantages  are  so  great 
and  numerous  that  their  realization  is  believed  to  involve 


patentable  invention. 


Orange,  N.J. 

November  1907 . 


Pinal  notion  is  requested. 
Respectfully  submitted, 
THOMAS  A.  EDISON, 
By  < 


V...  .23...  Room - 379  J.HMT 


Rej. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Deo.  3^907, 


Thomas  A.  Edison, 

Care  Frank  L,  Dyer, 
Edison  Laboratory, 
Orange,}?.  J. 


Please  find  below  a  communication  from,  tho  EXAMINER  in  charge  of  your  application, 


for  Process  of  Duplicating  Phonograph  Records, filed  )Jov.  3  t 903 
serial  number  179,716  .  » 


Commissioner  of  Patents, 


This  action  is  in  response  to  the  amendment  filed  the  15th 

ultimo. 

The  examiner  has  very  carefully  considered  this  case  again 
hut  oan  see  no  reason  for  changing  the  former  ruling  with 
reference  to  the  rejection  of  the  claims  and  accordingly  said 
claims  must  he  again  and  finally  rejected  in  view  of  the 
former  grounds  of  rejection  . 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE 


Thomas  A.  Edison  ) 

) 

IMPROVED  PROCESS  OE  DUPLICATING  ) 
PHONOGRAPH  RECORDS  ) 

) 

Filed  November  3,  1903  ) 

Serial  No.  179,716  ) 


Room  No .  379 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS: 

SIR: 

I  hereby  appeal  to  the  Examiners- in- 
Chief  from  the  decision  of  the  principal  Examiner  in  the 
matter  of  my  application  for  Letters  Patent  for  an  IMPROVED 
PROCESS  OF  DUPLICATING  PHONOGRAPH  RECORDS,  filed  November 
3,  1903,  serial  No.  179,716,  which  on  the  third  day  of 
December,  1907  was  rejected  for  the  second  time.  The  follow¬ 
ing  are  the  points  of  the  decision  upon  which  the  appeal  is 
taken: 

1.  The  Examiner  erred  in  rejecting  the  claims. 

2.  The  Examiner  erred  in  holding  the  olaims  to  be 
without  patentable  novelty. 

An  oral  hearing  is  requested. 

Very  respectfully, 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON 

^  ^ _ 

His  Attorney. 

Orange,  New  Jersey 
November  28th,  1908. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPPICE  . 


Application  of 
Thomas  A.  Edison,  for 

Prooeas  of  Duplicating 
Phonograph  Records, 

Piled  Not.  3,1903, 
Serial  Ntunber  179,716  . 


”  U,  S,  PATENT  OFFICE, 

DEC  8  1908 

}  MAILED. 

)  1 - J 

)  Before  the  Hon.  Board  of 
)  Examiners-in-Chief. 

) 

}  f-r-  '  .  ■... 


This.- is  an  answer  to  an  appeal  from  the  final  rejeotion 
of  claims  1,  2  and  3  of  this  case  . 


1.  The  process  of  multiplying  sound  records,  whioh  consists 
in  producing  a  suitable  master,  forming  a  matrix  or  mold  therefrom, 
molding  a  plurality  of  sub-masters  from  said  mold,  forming  a 
sub-matrix,  or  sub-mold  from  each  of  said  sub-masters,  and  then 
molding  duplicate  sound  records  from  each  of  said  sub-matrices 

or  sub-molds,  whereby  a  plurality  of  duplicate  sound  reoords  can 
be  obtained  simultaneously 'and  the  production  therdof  is  not 
limited  by  the  life  of  the  molds  in  whioh  they  are  formed,  substan¬ 
tially  as  set  forth  . 

2.  The  process  of  multiplying  sound  records,  which  con¬ 
sists  in  producing  a  suitable  roaster  having  a  record  groove  of 
abnormally  coarse  pitch,  forming  a  matrix  or  mold  therefrom, 
molding  from  said  matrix  or  mold  a  plurality  of  sub-masters  of 
leas  pitch  than  that  of  said  master,  forming  a  Bub-matrix  or  sub¬ 
mold  from  each  of  said  sub-raa3ters,  and  then  molding  from  said  sub- 
matrices  or  Bub-molds  duplioate  sound  reoords  of  standard  pitch, 
which  is  less  than  that  of  the  sub-madt  masters,  whereby  a 
plurality  of  duplioate  sound  records  can  be  obtained  simultaneous¬ 
ly  from  the  same  master  and  the  production  thereof  is  not  limited 
to  the  life  of  the  molds  in  which  they  are  directly  formed, 
substantially  as  set  forth  . 

3.  The  prooess  of  multiplying  sound  records,  whioh  con¬ 
sists  in  producing  a  suitable  master  of  coarse  pitoh,  forming  a 
matrix  or  mold  therefrom  of  the  same  pitoh,  molding  apjbbtality 
of.,  sub-masters  from,  said . mold  of. a  ...smaller  .pitoh,  forming  a  sub- 

matrix  or  sub-mold  from  eaoh  of  said  sub-masters  and  of  the 
same  pitch,  and  then  molding- duplioate  Bound  records  of  a  still 
smaller  pitch  from  each  of  said  sub-matrices  or  sub-molds, 
whereby  a  plurality  of  duplioate  sound  reoords  can  be  obtained 
simultaneously  and  the  production  thereof  is  not  limited  by 
the  life  of  the  mold  in  whioh  they  are  formed  ,  substantially 
as  set  forth  . 

The  references  relied  upon  are  .patents  to,. 

Edison, Feb.  5, 1901 ,#667, 662,  (181-16); 


Edison,  Sept.  11, 1900, #657, 527,  (181-16.)  i 
Arne t, May  14,1895,  #539,212,(181-16). 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  matrix  molds  for 
molding  expansible  and  oontraotible  material  are  made  larger 
than  the  molded  article  is  intended  to  "be  so  that  the  molded 
artiole  when  contracted  after  molding  will  be  of  the  desired  size. 
This  custom  is  indicated  in  this  art  by  the  speoification  and 
claim  1  of  Edison's  patent  #667,662.  The  article  produced  by 
the  process  of  this  patent  is  what  applicant  terms  his  sub-master 
and  in  so  far  as  the  claimed  devices  are  concerned,  applicant ' s 
j  sub-master  is  nothing  more  than  the  commercial  duplicate 
j record  commonly  sold  in  the  market  . 

V7hat  applicant  has  dons  in  performing  the  process  of 
the  claims  is  merely  to  have  duplicated  by  any  well  known  molding 
process  the  product  of  the  above  noted  patented  process,  i.e.,  the 
commercial  phonograph  record  produced  thereby. 

The  examiner  has  held  that  no  invention  can  be  display¬ 
ed  in  duplicating  a  duplicate  by  any  well  known  molding  process 
instead  of  duplicating  the  original  . 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  in  the  art  that 
commercial  records  such  as  are  made  by  the  process  in  patent 
#667,662,  or  any  other  of  the  well  known  molding  processes, 
are  bought  and  copied  by  any  of  the  known  copying  processes, 
such  as  by  electroplating  the  record  to  form  a  matrix  and  then 
molding  from  the  matrix  to  form  duplicates.  One  way  of 
duplicating  from  a  duplicate  1b  disclosed  in  patent  of  Edison, 
#657,527.  An  enlarged  record  is  disclosed  in  Amet  cited  from 
v/hioh  duplicates  of  normal  size  may  be  made  . 

TSfhether  a  plurality  of  sub-matrices  be  produced  or  but 
one  seems  to  be  immaterial  in  SO  far  as  the  patentability  of  the 
claimed  subject  matter  be  concerned,  for  the  plurality  of  sub- 
masters  constitute  nothing  more  than  a  plurality  of  commercial 
records  and  certainly  no  invention  could  be  displayed  in  making 
oopies  by  the  well  kijown  molding  process  of  a  plurality  of 


#179,716- 


•3. 


ocmuueroial  duplicates  instead  of  making  oopiea  from  a  eingle 
commercial  duplicate  . 


Respectfully  submitted: 


De^embjer  8,1908. 


Examiner,  Division  XXIII 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

United  States  Patent  Office, 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C., 


The  case  of 


RSC;  c 


. '  19°r 


^?X}*°-/7?,7U  ‘  w111  be  heard  ^  {Examiners- in-Chief 

on  the  j^f  day  rt-'tyyitviajb  .  190 7 

It  i3  the  ^OZ-i5/^oase  on  the  assignment  for  that  day. 

The  hearings  will  commence  at  ° '  olook,  and  as  soon  as 

the  argument  in  one  oase  is  concluded  the  succeeding  case  will 
be  taken  up. 

If  any  party,  or  his  attorney,  shall  not  appear  when  the 
oase  is  called,  his  right  to  an  oral  hearing  will  be  regarded 
as  waived.  ~ 

The  time  allowed  for  arguments  is  as  follows: 

Ex  parte  oases,  thirty  minutes; 

Motions,  thirty  minutes,  each  side; 

Interference  appeals,  final  hearing,  one  hour  each  side. 

By  special  leave,  obtained  before  the  argument  is  commenced, 
the  time  may  be  extended. 

The  appellant  shall  have  the  right  to  open  and  conclude  in 
interference  cases,  and  in  such  oase  a  full  and  fair  opening 
must  be  made . 

Briefs  in  interference  appeals  must  be  filed  in  aooordanoe 
with  the  provisions  of  Rule  147. 


Respectfully,. 


/ 


IN  THE  IJin  TED  STATES  PATENT  OPE  ICE 


ThomaB  A.  EdiBon 

PROCESS  OP  DUPLICATING 
PHONOGRAPH  RECORDS 

Piled  Not.  3,  1903 
Serial  No.  179,716 

briep  por  appellant 

This  is  an  appeal  from  the  final  rejection  of 
Claims  1,  2  and  3  of  this  oase. 


) 

j 

)  Before  the  Honorable  Board 
:  of  Examiners-in-Chief 


.  .  .  1-  The  process  of  multiplying  sound  records, 

whioh  consists  in  producing  a  suitable  master,  forming  a 
matrix  or  mold  therefrom,  molding  a  plurality  of  sub- 
masters  from  said  mold,  forming  a  sub-matrix  or  sub-mold 
from  eaoh  of  said  sub-maBters,  and  then  molding  duplioate 
sound  records  from  each  of  said  sub-matriceB  or  sub-moldB. 
whereby  a  plurality  of  duplicate  sound  reoords  oan  be  ob¬ 
tained  simultaneously  and  the  production  thereof  is  not 
limited  by  the  life  of  the  molds  in  whioh  they  are  formed, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 


.  .  ,  2.  The  process  of  multiplying  sound  reoords. 

which  consists  in  producing  a  suitable  master  having  a 
record  groove  of  abnormally  coarse  pitoh,  forming  a 
matrix  or  mold  therefrom,  molding  from  said  matrix  or 
mold  a  plurality  of  sub-masters  of  less  pitoh  than  that 
of  said  master,  forming  a  submatrix  or  Bub-mold  from  eaoh 
of  said  Bub-masters,  and  then  molding  from  said  sub- 
ra?irCoeB,.?r,  sub-molds  duplicate  sound  reoords  of  standard 
pitch,  whioh  is  less  than  that  of  the  sub-maBters,  where¬ 
by  a  plurality  of  duplicate  sound  reoords  can  be  obtained 
simultaneously  from  the  same  master  and  the  production 
thereof  is  not  limited  to  the  life  of  the  molds  in  whioh 
they  are  direotly  formed,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


.  .  .  5»  The  process  of  multiplying  sound  records, 

consists  in  producing  a  suitable  master  of  coarse 
f0mins  a  matrix  or  mold  therefrom  of  the  same 
pitch,  molding  a  plurality  of  sub-masters  from  said  mold 
of  a  smaller  pitoh,  forming  a  sub-matrix  or  sub-mold 


(1) 


from  eaoh  of  said  sub-masters  and  of  the  same  pitch,  and 
then  molding  duplioate  sound  records  of  a  still  smaller 
pitch  from  eaoh  of  said  suh-matrioes  or  Bub-molds,  where¬ 
by  a  plurality  of  duplicate  Bound  reoords  can  be  obtained 
simultaneously  and  the  production  thereof  is  not  limited 
by;  the  life  of  the  mold  in  which  they  are  formed,  sub¬ 
stantially  as  set  forth. 


The  references  relied  upon  are  patents  to 


hdison,  February  5,  1901  Ho.  667,6 62,  (181-16); 
Edison,  September  11,  i960,  Ho.  657,527,  (181-I6); 
Amet,  May  14,  1895,  Ko.  539,212,  USl-lfc). 


This  invention  consists  in  a  process  by  which 
molded  duplicate  phonograph  records  may  be  commercially 
produced  in  large  numbers,  and  are  so  produced  at  the 
works  of  the  appellant.  The  invention  lies  broadly  in 
the  provision  of  steps  in  the  prooess  of  manufacturing 
duplicates  on  a  large  scale,  whereby  a  rapid  multiplica¬ 
tion  of  the  original  record  is  achieved.  These; steps -are 
reforrod  to  in  the  first  of  the  claims,  for  example,  where 
after  stating  that  a  suitable  master  record  is  produced 
and  a  matrix  or  mold  formed  therefrom,  it  is  then  stated 
that  a  plurality  of  sub-masters  are  molded  from  said  mold 
and  a  sub-matrix  or  sub-mold  is  formed  from  eaoh  of  said 
sub-masterB.  The  duplioate  sound  records  which  form  the 
final  product  of  the  prooess  are  molded  from  eaoh  of  the 
Bub-matrices. 

Previous  to  appellant’s  invention,  on  which 
this  application  was  filed  Hovember  3,  1903,  there  was  in 
existence  no  process  by  which  molded  phonograph  records 
might  be  multiplied.  When  it  was  deBired  to  reoord,  for 
example,  a  particular  song  and  produce  commercial  dupli¬ 
cates  of  the  same,  the  singer  was  employed  to  produce  a 
master  reoord.  That  is  to  say,  he  sang  into  the  reoord- 


(2) 


ing  phonograph,  and  after  probably  a  large  number  of  trials 
succeeded  in  producing  a  record  sufficiently  perfect. 

From  this  record  a  matrix  or  mold  was  formed  by  an  electro¬ 
plating  process,  the  matrix  carrying  the  sound  record  in 
negative  on  its  bore.  The  master  record  waa  removed  from 
the  matrix  so  formed  und  the  duplicate  sound  records  were 
made  from  the  matrix,  one  after  the  other,  by  some  one 
of  the  then  well  known  processes  of  molding  sound  recordB, 
referred  to  in  the  specification  of  this  application; 

Those  processes  were  casting  molten  wax-like  material 
on  the  interior  surface  of  the  matrix,  or  dipping  the 
matrix  into  the  molten  material  and  removing  it  bo  that 
a  sufficient  quantity  of  the  material  adhered  to  the  bore 
of  the  matrix,  or  placing  a  blank  sound  record  of  a  some¬ 
what  smaller  diameter  than  the  matrix  inside  the  same, 
heating  it  until  it  became  somewhat  plastio,  and  then  ex¬ 
panding  it  as  by  means  of  an  expanding  mandrel  into  con¬ 
tact  with  the  surface  of  the  matrix.  By  whatever  of 
those  means  was  employed,  the  sound  record  appearing  in 
relief  on  the  bore  of  the  ma.trix  was  impressed  or  formed 
on  the  exterior  surface  of  the  duplicate  record.  The 
latter  was  then  subjected  to  cold  sufficient  to  contract 
it  out  of  contact  with  the  record  surfaoe  of  the  matrix 
when  it  was  removed. 

This  method  was  all  very  v/ell  for  a  compara¬ 
tively  small  production  of  commercial  duplicate  records, 
but  it  was  limited  as  to  the  two  commercially  important 
attributes  of  rapidity  of  production  and  quantity  of 
records  which  could  be  produced.  That  is  to  say,  the 
life  of  the  matrix  from  which  all  these  duplicate  records 
were  made  wub  limited.  It  might,  for  example,  only  be 


possible  to  produce  a  thousand  perfect  records  from  the 
matrix  before  it  became  injured  or  otherwise  unfit  for  a 
further  production  of  duplicate  records.  When  this 
happened,  it  was,  of  course,  impossible  to  further  pro¬ 
ceed  with  the  duplication  of  that  particular  record,  and 
the  only  way  to  obtain  more  records  would  be  for  the 
Binger  to  sing  additional  timeB  into  the  rocording  phono¬ 
graph  to  produoe  other  perfect  master  records  from  whioh 
matrices  or  molds  were  formed,  and  ffom  these  additional 
duplicates  could  be  molded.  Of  course,  it  is  obvious 
that  this  procedure  was  open  to  various  grave  defects.  It 
was  difficult  for  the  3inger  or  other  performer  to  make 
a  succession  of  records  sufficiently  nearly  alike.  A 
number  of  trials  were  always  necessary  to  produce  a  single 
good  record,  and  in  the  time  required  to  produce  say  five 
or  ten  good  records,  the  singer's  voice  would  be  quite  apt 
to  deteriorate  bo  that  his  later  efforts  were  not  as . 
good  as-  the  firBt.  While  it  may  be  urged  that  a  number 
of  matrices  or  molds  might  be  formed  from  one  perfect 
master  record  by  the  contraction  and  removal  of  the  master 
mold  from  the  first  matrix  and  the  formation  of  subsequent 
molds  therefrom,  it  may  be  stated  that  there  is  always 
danger  of  injury  to  the  surface  of  the  master  in  removing 
it  from  the  matrix,  and  that  it  is  extremely  difficult  to 
successfully  remove  it  from  the  mold  in  perfect  condition. 
In  spite  of  the  disadvantages  of  having  each  performer 
make  .a;  number  of  master  records  for  each  Bong  or  perform¬ 
ance  which  was  to  be  recorded,  this  practice  was  followed 
at  appellant's  phonograph  works  and  all  other  workB  where 
molded  phonograph  reoordB  were  produced  commercially  prior 
to  the  invention  under  discussion.  At  this  time  in  1<?03 


(4) 


it  was  found  sufficient  at  the  Edison  phonograph  works  to 
have  each  performer  make  five  or  six  records  of  each  piece. 
About  this  time,  however,  the  demand  for  commercial  phono¬ 
graph  records  grew  enormously.  A  large  number  of  dupli¬ 
cate  records  had  periodically  to  be  produced  in  a  short 
time,  since  new  selections  are  put  on  the  market  once 
every  month.  In  this  limited  time,  it  was  impossible  to 
make  a  sufficient  number  of  duplicates  from  five  or  six 
master  records,  and  at  times,  as  many  as  even  thirty-five 
original  records  had  to  be  produced  by  the  performer-  of  a 
certain  popular  selection  in  order  to  meet  the  orders  for 
that  record.  This  was,  of  course,  such  a  had  commercial 
situation  as  demanded  a  remedy,  and  appellant's  invention 
resulted.  This  invention  consisted  in  the  multiplication 
of  a  single  perfect  master  record  hy  which  an  indefinite 
number  of  good  duplicate  records  might  be  produced.  TKhere, 
in  the  prior  art,  no  one  had  thought  of  any  other  plan  thar 
to  form  duplicates  from  the  original  record,  Mr.  Edison 
molded  a  plurality  of  perfect  copies  of  the  original  master 
record  and  made  duplicates  from  each  one  of  these  perfect 
copies  or  sub-masters.  The  invention  consisted  in  a  plan 
which  made  commercially  feasible  the  multiplication  of 
records  from  the  original,  whereas,  formerly  there  had 
been  but  a  painful  addition.  The  sub-masters  constituted 
the  multiplying  element  whereby  a  product  instead  of  a 
mere  sum  of  duplicate  reoordB  was  achieved. 

This  result  is  not  even  hinted  at  in  the  prior 
art.  Patent  to  Edison  667,662  merely  shows  one  of  the 
processes  known  at  the  date  of  tho  present  invention, for 
forming  duplicates  from  an  original  record.  This,  or  an 


(?) 


analogoua  process  is  the  one  which  was  used  hy  appellant 
prior  to  his  present  invention,  and  upon  which  the  present 
invention  is  a  very  valuable  improvement  in  the  method  of 
commercial  production  on  a  large  Beale. 

The  Examiner  has  stated  that  no  invention  can  be 
displayed  in  duplicating  a  duplicate  by  any  v/oll  known 
molding  process  instead  of  duplicating  the  original,  and 
he  has  further  stated  "That  whether  a  plurality  of  sub¬ 
matrices  be  produced  or  but  one  seems  to  be  immaterial  in 
so  far  as  the  patentability  of  the  claimed  subject  matter 
be  concerned,  for  the  plurality  of  sub-xaa3tero  constitute 
nothing  more  than  a  plurality  of  commercial  records  and 
certainly  no  invention  could  be  displayed  in  making  copies 
by  the  well  known  molding  process  of  a  plurality  of  com¬ 
mercial  duplicates  instead  of  making  copies  from  a  single 
commercial  duplicate."  It  would  seem  that  by  this  lan¬ 
guage  the  Examiner  has  shown  his  entire  non-conception  of 
the  invention  in  issue.  It  is  by  molding  a  plurality  of 
sub-masters  from  a  single  mold,  forming  a  sub-matrix  from 
each  of  said  sub-masters,  and  then  molding  duplicate  sound 
records  from  each  of  said  sub-matrices  that  multiplica¬ 
tion  of  copieB  is  achieved,  which  would  not  be  obtained 
by  merely  duplicating  a  duplicate.  That  is,  the  gist 
of  appellant's  invention  in  its  broader  form,  which  is 
claimed  in  Claim  1,  ifl,  this  molding  of  a  plurality  of 
sub-masterB  from  a  single  mold.  This  is  the  step  in  the 
process  the  provision  of  which  made  possible  the  pres¬ 
ent  tremendous  production  of  commercial  duplic at e 1 ;pho - 
nograph  records.  This  iB  more  than  a  change  in  degree. 
Further,  that  the  step  was  not  an  abvious  one  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  for  a  considerable  length  of  time  after  the 


(6) 


business  of  the  Edison  phonograph  works  had  grown  to  such 
an  extent,  tend,  the  production  of  a  large  number  of  dupli¬ 
cate  records  in  a  limited  time  was  necessary,  the  method 
of  increasing  the  production  by  increasing  the  number  of 
master  records  was  followed  with  ito  consequent  imperfec¬ 
tions,  annoyances  and  expense,  and  no  other  method  was  seer 
to  be  practicable  in  spite  of  the  obvious  necessity  for 
the  change.  This  is  also  true  of  all  the  other  manufactur¬ 
ers  and  inventors  at  this  time,  none  of  whom  had  conceived 
any  processes  of  duplication  other  than  the  process  by 
mechanical  copying,  such  as  is  disclosed  in  the  patent  to 
Amet  in  the  record,  and  the  processes  of  molding  dupli¬ 
cates  from  the  original  record,  such  as  that  disclosed  in 
patent  667,662  in  the  record. 

The  other  references  brought  forward  by  the  Ex¬ 
aminer  do  not  seem  to  strengthen  his  position  in  assert¬ 
ing  the  non-patentability  of  the  present  invention.  Pat¬ 
ent  to  Edison  657,527  merely  provides  for  the  making  from 
an  original  record  of  a  single  metallic  duplicate  by 
electro-deposition  upon  the  interior  of  a  matrix,  in  order 
that  copies  may  be  made  therefrom  by  mechanical  means,  anc 
on  acoount  of  the  hardness  or  durability  of  the  metal,  the 
number  of  copies  which  can  be  made  thereby  increased. 

That  is  to  say,  for  an  original  record  formed  of  a  wax¬ 
like  or  a  metallic  soap  composition,  a  metallio  positive 
record  1b  substituted.  To  be  sure,  as  the  Examiner  states, 
this  shows  the  idea  of  making  duplicates  from  a  duplicate 
record,  but  it  further  shows  that  appellant's  invention 
involves  muoh  more  than  merely  duplicating  a  duplicate, 
since  appellant's  invention  involves  the  feature  of  multi¬ 
plication  of  the  molded  records,  which  is  not  hinted  at, 


(7) 


of  courBO,  in  the  patent  657,572  to  Edison.  In  that 
patent,  only  one  metallic  copy  1b  produoed  from  the  origi¬ 
nal  record,  wheroaB,  according  to  the  present  invention  as 
deBorihod  and  claimed,  a  plurality  of  suh-maaterB  are  pro¬ 
duced  hy  virtue  of  whioh  fact  a  multiplication  of  the  final 
copieB  iB  obtained.  It  1b  impossible  to  obtain  a  plurality 
of  Bub-masters  by  any  means  disclosed  in  patent  657,527, 
since  the  metallic  copy  is  produoed,  not  by  molding,  but 
by  electro-deposition,  and  it  is  necessary  to  destroy  the 
matrix  in  order  to  obtain  the  copy.  In  patent  657,527, 
the  matrix  carrying  the  record  in  relief  on  ItB  bore  was 
preferably  made  of  copper,  and  a  metallic  master  or  posi¬ 
tive  record  was  formed  therefrom  perferably  by  depositing 
silver  upon  the  surface  of  the  copper  matrix  carrying  the 
record,  whereupon  the  oopper  matrix  waB  dissolved  away 
from  the  silver  deposit  by  treatment  with  hydroohloric 
acid  or  other  solvent  of  copper  which  does  not  affect 
silver.  Patent  to  Amet  539,212,  whioh  is  the  other  refer¬ 
ence  in  the  case,  merely  discloses  the  fact  that  it  is  old 
to  obtain  copies  of  an  original  record  by  a  mechanioal  pro¬ 
cess,  the  movements  of  a  stylus  whioh  tracks  the  record 
groove  of  the  original  record  being  oonveyed  by  a  system 
of  linkages  to  a  recording  stylus  whioh  travels  over  a 
rotating  phonograph  blank.  By  this  meanB,  a  oopy  of  the 
original  record  1b  made,  which  copy  iB  Bomewhat  larger 
than  the  original  record,  since  the  movement  of  the  stylus 
traveling  over  the  original  record  is  amplified  somewhat 
in  the  link  connections  therefrom  by  whioh  the  recording 
stylus  traveling  over  the  blank  iB  actuated.  ThiB,  of 
course,  has  no  bearing  on  the  broad  question  involved  in 
Claim  1  of  this  application,  which  concerns  only  the 


(8) 


patentability  of  the  process  of  multiplication  involving 
the  process  steps  which  have  been  referred  to. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  a  phonograph  record  oast 
or  expanded  in  a  mold,  and  whioh  is  shrunk  slightly  radial¬ 
ly  after  its  formation  in  the  mold  to  free  it  from  the  sur- 
faoe  of  the  mold,  also  shrinks  to  some  extent  longitudinal¬ 
ly.  Therefore,  a  duplicate  Bound  record  having  Bhrunk  to 
Borne  extent  longitudinally,  haB  a  finer  pitch  or  a  greater 
number  of  threads  per  inch  than  the  original  record  from 
which  it  was  made.  Appellant's  invention  contemplated  the 
formation  of  duplioate  sound  records,  the  final  produot  of 
the  commercial  process  having  the  same  pitch  as  the  records 
previously  on  the  market,  whioh  would  allow  them  to  be 
played  upon  the  standard  phonographs  then  on  the  market. 
This  meant  that  the  duplicates  should  have  a  standard 
pitch  of  100  threadB  to  the  inch.  ThiB  necessitated  the 
Bub-masters  from  which  the  duplioate  records  v/ere  to  be 
formed  having  a  pitch  somewhat  coarser  than  100  threads  to 
the  inch,  and  further,  that  the  original  master  record 
should  be  made  on  a  recording  machine  having  a  still  coarB- 
or  pitoh.  It  results  from  thiB  that  the  sub-masters  pro¬ 
duced  in  appellant's  prooesB  are  not  the  ordinary  com¬ 
mercial  duplioate  records.  They  would  be  unfit  for  ubo 
as  duplicate  records  commercially,  beoause  they  are  formed 
with  a  pitoh  of  98-2/3  threads  per  inoh,  whereaB,  the 
commercial  phonographs  on  which  they  would  be  played  have 
a  pitoh  of  100  threads  per  inoh,  which  would  result  in  a 
very  faulty  reproduction  Bhould  it  be  attempted  to  repro¬ 
duce  from  such  a  master  on  an  ordinary  100  thread  phono¬ 
graph.  The  reproducing  stylus  would  not  properly  and  ao- 


(9) 


eurately  track  the  record  groove,  hut  would  jump  from  one 
groove  to  another  and  would  otherwise  fail  to  properly  re¬ 
produce  so  that  a  confusion  of  sound  would  result.  In 
this  connection  it  should  be  noted  that  the  statement  of 
the  Examiner  on  page  2  of  the  Examiner's  Statement  in 
this  case  is  incorrect,  namely,  that  "it  is  a  matter  of 
common  knowledge  in  the  art  that  commercial  records  such 
as  are  made  by  the  process  in  patent  No.  667,662,  or  any 
other  of  the  well  known  molding  processes,  are  bought  and 
copied  by  any  of  the  known  copying  processes,  such  as  by 
electro-plating  the  record  to  form  a  matrix  and  then  mold¬ 
ing  from  the  matrix  to  form  duplicates."  Of  course,  as 
has  been  explained,  this  is  inaarcact, since  if  any  com¬ 
mercial  record  were  bought  and  copied  by  forming  a  matrix 
and  then  molding  therefrom  to  form  duplicates,  the  latter 
would  have  a  pitch  materially  finer  than  100  threadB  to 
the  inch,  so  that  duplicates  so  formed  would  be  valueless 
for  reproduction  on  the  phonographs  in  general  use  all 
over  the  country. 

Claims  2  and  3  under  consideration,  have  the 
limitation  which  is  not  found  in  Claim  1,  that  the  master 
has  a  record  groove  of  abnormally  coarse  pitch  from  which 
a  matrix  of  the  same  pitch  is  formed,  while  the  sub-maBter 
molded  therefrom  and  the  sub-matrix  formed  from  the  sub- 
master  have  a  lesB  pitch,  and  the  duplicates  formed  from 
the  various  sub-matrices  have  a  Btill  less  pitch,  whioh 
is  the  standard  pitch  of  commercial  phonographs.  IhiB 
feature  of  these  clalmB  is  entirely  novel,  and  is  thought 
to  even  more  clearly  distinguish  these  claimB  from  the 
prior  art  than  do  the  limitatipnB  of  Claim  1.  In  practice, 
duplicate  sound  records  having  100  threads  to  the  inch 


(10) 


are  formed  from  Bub-masters  and  Bub-matrioeB  having  98-2/3 
threads  to  the  inoh,  these  suh-masterB  in  turn  having  been 
molded  from  an  original  matrix  having  97-l/ 3  threads  per 
inch.  The  discovery  of  these  proper  pitches  involved  con¬ 
siderable  research  and  Investigation  on  the  part  of  appell¬ 
ant,  and  it  is  only  by  the  use  of  the  principle  involved 
that  commercially  successful  duplicates  are  formed  by 
this  prooesB.  There  iB  nothing  in  the  record  to  rebut 
the  novelty  of  thiB  3tep  of  the  process.  The  Examiner 
Btates  in  his  statement  that  an  enlarged  reoord  is  dis¬ 
closed  in  Amet,  from  which  duplioateB  of  normal  size  may 
be  made.  That  is  to  say,  in  Amet  an  enlarged  copy  of  the 
original  record  is  made  by  mechanical  raeanB,  and  the  Ex¬ 
aminer  states  that  copies  of  this  latter  record  of  normal 
size  might  be  made.  This  is,  however,  an  entirely  differ¬ 
ent  thing  from  appellant's  process,  in  which  the  sub-mast«r 
is  smaller  than  the  master  which  is  the  original  reoord, 
and  the  duplicate  is  smaller  than  the  sub-master.  The 
process  suggested  by  the  Examiner  from  the  Amet  patent  iB 
entirely  different  from  appellant's  process  and  would  not 
suggest  in  the  slightest  appellant's  process. 

Among  the  advantages  accruing  from  appellant's 
present  invention,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  the  sub-mas¬ 
ters  are  formed  from  the  original  mold  by  a  slow  and  care¬ 
ful  procesB  by  a  trained  orew  of  men,  whereby  sub-masters 
of  great  perfection  are  obtained,  the  duplicate  records 
being  formed  from  the  Bub-matrioes  by  a  different  prooess 
by  less  skilled  men,  by  which  commercial  duplicate  reoord 3 
are  produoed  with  groat  rapidity  and  of  as  great  perfect! an 
aB  is  feasible  in  commerce.  By  means  of  the  procesB  used 
for  the  formation  of  the  sub-maBters  and  the  care  taken 


(11) 


and  time  consumed  in  the  making  thereof,  a  copy  of  the 
original  record  of  great  perfection  is  made.  This  would 
not  do  for  Bale  commercially,  hecauBe  records  so  formed 
would  "be  too  expensive,  hut  they  make  excellent  masters 
from  which  the  commercial  duplicates  are  molded. 

RESUME 

Appellant  is  the  first  in  the  art  to  mold  dupli¬ 
cate  sound  records  hy  a  process  which  provides  for  a  multi¬ 
plication  of  copies,  which  would  not  he  obtained  hy  merely 
duplicating  a  duplicate.  This  is  a  process  of  the  great¬ 
est  commercial  importance  and  usefulness.  Invention  is 
involved  because  steps  are  added  to  the  process  which  were 
not  suggested  hy  anything  known  to  the  art  prior  to  this 
time,  and  which  steps  constitute  more  than  .the  more  carry¬ 
ing  forward  of  an  old  idea.  That  theBe  steps',  which  rende 
ed  possible  the  great  present  commercial  production  of 
phonograph  records,  simple  as  they  now  appear  to  he  in  the 
light  of  after  knowledge,  amounted  to  Invention,  is  shown 
in  particular  hy  the  fact  that  the  process  tfas  xiot  discov¬ 
ered  until  long  after  the  ill  for  which  it  proved  an  effic¬ 
ient  remedy  had  been  in  existence.  Further,  Claims  ,2  and 
5  carry  a  further  limitation,  which  is  not  anticipated, hy 
the  prior  art,  and  which  is  necessary  in  the  practical- 
carrying  out  of  the  invention,  namely,  that  /the,'1  master  1  ... 

record,  sub-master  and  duplicate  records  ehbuld,1  be  suoceBf- 
ively  smaller  and  of  finer  pitch.  Therefore,^ it  is  thought 
that  the  claims  are  patentable  and  allowance  of  -  all  ojf  thu 
same  is  respectfully  requested. 

Respectfully  submitted.  '  '  \j 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON 

By  _ / 

His  Attorney 

1  ■;  \ 


Orange,  New  Jersey 
February  ,  190? 


Inoloaed  find  copy  of  deoialon  thia  day  rendered  hy  the 
Examiner b-  in-Chief  in  the  ex  parts  oabo  of  cTTurtM/LJ) .  $ . 


By  direction  of  the  CommiBB loner: 

Very  respectfully, 


Appeal  llo.  1660.  U.  S.  Patent  Office,  March  1909. 

Before  the  Examiners-in-chief,  on  Appeal. 

Application  of  Thomas  A.  Edison  for  a  patent  for  an 
improvement  in  .Process  of  Duplicating  Phonograph  Records,  filed 
November  3,  1903.  Serial  Ho.  179,716. 

Kr.  Prank  L.  Dyer  for  appellant. 


Thi3  i3  an  appeal  from  the  action  of  the  examiner  rejecting 
claims  1,  2  and  3  on  the  following  references: 

Amet,  May  14,  1095,  No.  539,212; 

Edison,  Sep.  11,  1900,  Ho.  657,527; 

"  ?eb.  5,  1001,  Ho.  667,662. 

Claim  1  is  fairly  representative  of  the  appealed  claims 
and  is  as  follows: 


"1.  ihe  process  of  nultiplying  sound  records,  which  con- 
si3ts  in  producing  a  suitable  master,  forming  a  matrix  or  mold 
therefrom,  molding  a  plurality  of  sub-masters  from  said  mold, 
forming  a  sub-matrix  or  sub-mold  from  each  of  said  sub-masters, 
ana  then  molding  duplicate  sound  records  from  each  of  said  sub¬ 
matrices  or  sub-molds,  whereby  a  plurality  of  duplicate  sound 
records  can  be  obtained  simultaneously  and  the  production  there¬ 
of  is  not  limited  by  the  life  of  the  molds  in  which  they  are 
formed,  substantially  as  set  forth." 


It  is  old  in  the  art  cited  to  make  records  by  forming' 
the  matrix  from  the  master  and  molding  records  from  the  matrix. 

The  subject  matter  of  thiB  application  comprises  in  addition  to  this 
old  series  of  steps  the  Intermediate  step  of  molding  a  plurality 
of  sub-masters,  forming  corresponding  matrices  and  reproducing  the 
records  from  the  latter.  In  other  words,  a  plurality  of  matrices 
are  obtained  indirectly  from  the  same  master  by  means  of  sub-masters' 
and  employed  instead  of  the  original  matrices,  thus  obviating  the 
necessity  of  makings  a  plurality  of  masters.  The  sub-masters  are 
produced  from  the  master  in  the  same  way  that  records  are  produced 
in  the  prior  art  from  the  master,  and  records  are  made  from  the 


I 


1660, 


sub-masters  precisely  0.3  In  the  prior  art  from  the  masters. 

/  It  is  pointed  out  by  the  examiner  that  commercial  records 

J  are  commonly  used  to  make  matrices  for  the  production  of  duplicates, 

!  which  practice  seems  to  us  to  involve  the  very  process  here  claimed, 

^  it  being  immaterial,  patentably,  whether  one  or  a  plurality  of 
secondary  matrices  are  employed. 

Again,  in  Edison  Ho.  657,527  is  described  the  production 
of  duplicates  of  the  master  for  the  purpose  of  reproduction  of  record^, 
though  by  a  different  method.  There  would  seem  to  be  no  invention 
jv.in  carrying  this  step  into  the  molded  record  art.  Appellant  argues, 

however,  that  in  molding  sub-mastors  as  distinguished  from  other 
processes  of  reproduction  it  is  necessary  to  make  the  master  larger 
to  allow  for  shrinkage,  but  this  is  well  known  and  the  remedy  like¬ 
wise..  In  Edison,  Ho.  667,662  it  is  said  the  master  must  be  larger 
or  of  coarser  pitch  than  the  desired  record  to  allow  for  shrinkage. 
Since  applicant  must  get  to  his  final  product  in  two  molding  steps 
he  must,  of  course,  allow  for  two  shrinkages  instead  of  one  and 
make  his  master  of  corresponding  pitch. 

V/e  cannot  see  any  invention,  in  view  of  the  prior  art, 
either  in  the  conception  of  providing  the  plurality  of  sub-masters 
or  in  the  method  of  carrying  the  conception  into  execution. 

The  decision  of  the  examiner  is  affirmed. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPPICE 


Thomas  A.  Edison 

IMPROVED  PROCESS  OE  DUPLI¬ 
CATING  PHONOGRAPH  RECORDS 

Piled  November  3,  1903 
Serial  No.  179,716 


) 

j 


)  Room  No.  379. 

f 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS 
SIR: 

I  hereby  appeal  to  the  Commissioner 
in  person  from  the  decision  of  the  Principal  Examiner 
in  the  matter  of  my  application  for  Letters  Patent  for 
an  IMPROVED  PROCESS  OP  DUPLICATING  PHONOGRAPH  RECORDS, 
filed  November  3,  1903,  Serial  No.  179,716.  The  follow¬ 
ing  are  assigned  as  reasons  of  appeal :- 

1.  The  Examiners-in-Chief  erred  in  affirming  the 
decision  of  the  Primary  Examiner,  rejecting  the  claims. 

2.  The  Examiners-in-Chief  erred  in  holding  the 
olairas  void  of  Invention  in  view  of  the  prior  art. 

3.  The  ExaminerB-in-Chief  erred  in  following  the 
statement  of  the  Examiner  that  "commercial  records  are 
oommonly  used  to  make  matrices  for  the  production  of 
duplicates",  and.  holding  that  such  apractioe  involves  the 
process  here  claimed. 


(1) 


4.  The  ExaminerB-ln-Chief  erred,  in  holding  that  a 
step  of  the  process  described  in  applicant's  patent  No. 
657*527  oould  he  oarried  into  the  process  of  applicant's 
present  application  without  invention. 

An  oral  hearing  is  requested.  It  is  noted 
that  applicant's  attorney  will  he  in  Washington  from 
April  9th  to  12th  Inclusive,  and  would  he  glad  to  have 
the  hearing  set  for  one  of  those  dateB  if  possible. 

Very  respectfully, 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON 

Attorney. 


Orange,  N.  J. 
March  22,  1910. 


y 

i 


Mar oh  22,  19X0 


Hon.  Commissioner  of  Patents, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Sir: 

I  anoloso  herewith  appeal  to  the  Commissioner  in 
person  in  the  application  of  Thomas  A.  Edison  IMPROVED 
PROCESS  OP  DUPLICATING  PHONOGRAPH  RECORDS,  filed  November  ' 
3*  1903,  Serial  No.  179,716.  I  also  enclose  check  for 
§20.00  signed  by  Dyer  Smith  covering  the  fee  for  the 
appeal. 

Very  respectfully, 


DS/JS 

Eno. 


2 — 201. 


The  hearings  will  oommenoe  at  |  ten  j-  o '  clock,  and  as  soon  as 
the  argument  in  one  case  is  concluded  the  succeeding  oase  wfAl 


be  taken  up. 

If  any  party,  or  his  attorney,  shall  &ot  appear  when  the 
case  is  called,  his  right  to  an  oral  hearing  will  be  regarded 
as  waived. 


The  time  allowed  for  arguments  is  as  follows: 

Ex  parte  cases,  thirty  minutes; 

Motions,  thirty  minutes,  each  side; 

Interference  appeals,  final  hearing,  one  hour  each  side. 

By  special  leave,  obtained  before  the  argument  is  commenced, 
the  time  may  be  extended. 

The  appellant  shall  have  the  iright  to  open  and  conclude  in 
interference .  cases ,  and  in  such  <<ase  a  f.ull  and  fair  opening 
must  be  made. 

Briefs  in  interference  appeals  must  be  filed  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  Rule  147. 


Respeotfully , 


Mr.  Walter  Miller, 

26  Linden  Place, 

Orange,  K.J. 

Bear  Sir: 

Enclosed  herewith  find  affidavit  for  your 


signature.  Kindly  make  any  oorrections  which  you  think 
necessary  and  return  to  me  the  first  thing  tomorrow 
morning. 


IH  THE  TOUTED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE 

Thomas  A.  Edison 

PROCESS  OF  DUPLICATING 
PHONOGRAPH  RECORDS 

Filed  Nov.  3,  1903 
Serial  No.  179,716 

AFFIDAVIT  OF  WAITER  H.  HILLER 

State  of  New  York  ) 

:  ss. 

County  of  New  York  ) 

WALTER  H.  HILLER,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes 
and  says  aB  follows:  I  am  of  mature  age,  reside  at 

Orange,  New  Jorsey  and  am  Kanager  of  the  Recording  Depart¬ 
ment  of  the  National  Phonograph  Company.  For  some  time 
prior  to  the  invention  of  the  process  upon  whioh  the 
above  entitled  application  waB  filed,  the  National  Phono¬ 
graph  Company  had  found  it  necessary  to  have  eaoh  Bingor 
or  performer  make  a  number  of  original  records  or  master 
records  from  whioh  matrioes  wore  made,  in  whioh  matrices 
the  duplicate  records  intended  for  commercial  sale  were 
then  molded.  For  some  time  before  the  invention  described 
in  Mr.  Edison's  application  above  identified,  eaoh  singer 
was  required  to  make  five  or  six  master  records,  and 


(1) 


shortly  hof ore  the  invention  the  business  of  the  National 
Phonograph  Company  had.  grown  to  nsuoh  an  extent  that  a 
singer  was  sometimes  required  to  make  ten  or  even  more 
master  records.  As  quite  a  number  of  trials  were  necess¬ 
ary  in  order  to  obtain  one  perfect  master  reoord,  the 
making  of  five  or  six  or  more  masters  required  a  groat 
deal  of  effort  on  the  performer's  part  with  consequent 
deterioration  in  the  quality  of  the  recordB  last  made. 
Also,  in  the  case  of  public  men  and  others,  records  of 
who  Be  voices  were  desired,  it  was  found  impossible  to 
secure  the  requisite  number  of  masters  in  order  to  supply 
the  demand.  Hence,  the  new  process  described  in  Mr. 
Edison's  application  above  identified,  by  which  the  re¬ 
quired  number  of  duplicates  were  formed  with  the  necessity 
of  making  only  a  single  perfeot  master  and  matrix  by  the 
use  of  a  plurality  of  sub-matrloes  and  sub-molds  made 
from  the  main  mold,  was  found  to  overcome  an  almost  in¬ 
tolerable  situation  and  proved  just  the  thing  wo  were  all 
looking  for.  This  process  has  been  uBed  continuously 
by  the  National  Phonograph  Company  since  the  time  of  itB 
invention,  the  old  method  having  been  entirely  discarded. 

I  have  been  continuously  in  charge  of  the  making  of  rec¬ 
ords  for  the  national  Phonograph  Company  and  the  other 
Edison  companies  sinoo  a  time  long  before  the  date  of  Mr. 
Edison's  invention  and  have  always  been  quite  familiar 
with  the  conditions  of  tho  trade.  Therefore,  I  oan  and 
do  say  from  my  own  knowledge  that  tho  improved  process 
described  in  Mr,  Edison's  application  Serial  Mo.  179,716 


(2) 


has  been  a  great  coranerolal  success  ever  since  ita  adoption 
hy  the  National  Phonograph  Company  and  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  National  Phonograph  Company  for  the 
production  of  the  large  number  of  duplicate  records  made 
by  them  each  month,  and  that  further  the  conditions  whioh 
I  have  described  and  whioh  the  adoption  of  the  invention 
overcame  had  existed  for  a  considerable  length  of  time 
before  the  invention  without  remedy,  during  which  time 
considerable  experimenting  was  done  by  Mr.  Edison's 
assistants  with  a  view  to  improving  the  situation.  As 
far  as  I  know,  the  process  described  in  Mr.  Edison's 
application  was  never  practiced  by  any  one  until  it  was 
reduced  to  practice  under  Mr.  Edison's  direction  some  time 
prior  to  the  filing  of  the  application  above  reforred  to. 
The  business  of  tho  National  Phonograph  Company  waB  grow¬ 
ing  all  the  time  at  the  period  of  which  I  speak,  but  it 
certainly  must  have  been  a  number  of  months  before  the 
invention  of  Mr.  Edison's  process  that  singers  and  per¬ 
formers  were  required  to  make  five  or  six  master  records 
for  each  selection  in  order  that  a  sufficient  number  of 
molds  might  be  had. 


Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me 
this  day  of  ,  191O. 


1 


IN  THE  TOUTED  STATES  PATENT  OPPICE 


ThomaB  A.  Edison 

PROCESS  OP  DUPLICATING 
PHONOGRAPH  RECORDS 

Piled  Nov.  3,  1903 
Serial  No.  179,716 


) 

) 

j 

) 


Room  No.  379. 


HONORABLE  COMMISSIONER  OP  PATENTS 
SIR: 

In  order  that  the  specification  and 
claims  of  this  application  may  he  presented  in  a  clean 
draft  and  all  in  one  paper  for  consideration  hy  the 
Commissioner  in  the  appeal  to  him  from  the  decision  of 
the  Board  of  Examiners-in-Chief  rejecting  the  claims, 
please  amend  hy  cancelling  the  application  and  claims  and 
substituting  the  following  whioh  is  a  verbatim  copy  of 
the  speoifioation  and  claims  now  standing  in  the  case: 


SPEGIPIOATION 

TO  WHOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN: 

BE  IT  KNOWN  that  I,  Thomss  A.  Edi¬ 
son,  of  Llewellyn  Park,  grange,  in  the  County  of  Essex, 
State  of  New  Jersey,  have  invented  certain  improvements  in 
the  Process  of  Duplicating  Phonograph  Reoords  (Case  No. 
1,119),  of  whioh  the  following  is  a  description: 


(1) 


My  invention  relates  to  an  improved  process  for 
producing  duplicate  phonograph  records  from  matrioes  or 
molds.  Heretofore  suoh  records  have  been  produced  by 
firBt  making  a  suitable  master,  forming  a  matrix  or 
mold  around  said  master,  removing  said  master  and  then 
molding  the  duplicates  successively  by  means  of  said  mold. 
While  it  is  sometimes  possible  to  remove  the  master  with¬ 
out  injury  from  the  mold  so  that  it  can  be  used  for  the 
production  of  another  or  other  moldB,  it  requires  ex¬ 
treme  care  and  there  is  alwayB  danger  of  injury  to  the 
surface  of  the  laaster,  whereby  it  becomes  unfit  for 
further  use.  Inasmuch  as  the  delicate  surface  of  the 
mold  thus  produced  almost  inevitably  becomes  scratched 
or  marred  at  some  time  during  continued  use,  the  life 
of  the  mold  is  limited  and  therefore  the  number  of  du¬ 
plicates  which  can  be  produced  from  the  mold  is  limited. 

If  one  desires  to  obtain  additional  duplicates,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  construct  another  mold,  and  if  the 
master  has  boen  injured  or  destroyed  it  will,  of  course, 
be  necessary  to  produce  another  master.  This  in  many 
cases  will  be  impossible,  because  one  may  not  be  able 
to  secure  the  services  of  the  person  or  perBonB  who 
produoed  the  original  master,  their  voices  may  have 
changed,  or  other  reasons  may  prevent  the  production 
of  a  second  master. 

Furthermore,  it  frequently  happens  that 
there  is  a  great  demand  for  a  particular  selection  which 
it  is  impossible  to  fill  by  the  production  of  dupli¬ 
cates  from  a  single  mold,  beoause  of  the  time  necessar¬ 
ily  consumed  in  producing  each  duplicate.  In  order, 
therefore,  to  overcome  these  difficulties,  it  has  been 

(2) 


the  practioe  In  thiB  art  to  produce  several  master  rec¬ 
ords  at  the  same  time  which  shall  he  as  nearly  alike 
as  possible ,  so  that  a  plurality  of  molds  can  he  pro¬ 
duced,  one  from  each  master.  This  process  is  objection¬ 
able,  however,  because  the  expense  of  producing  master 
reoords  of  artistic  quality  is  very  great,  requiring 
a  large  number  of  trials,  since  the  slightest  blast  or 
other  flaw  in  the  record  necessitates  the  discarding 
thereof.  furthermore,  it  is  impossible  to  produce  two 
masters  which  are  exactly  alike. 

The  object  of  the  present  invention  is  a 
process  whereby  a  practically  unlimited  number  of  sound 
records  can  be  produced,  each  of  which  is  a  duplicate 
of  a  single  maBter;  whereby  any  desired  number  of  molds 
can  be  produced  at  any  time  for  molding  said  records; 
whereby  any  desired  number  of  exactly  similar  duplicate 
records  oan  be  molded  simultaneously;  and  whereby  a 
permanent  and  enduring  reoord  of  the  master  may  be  ob¬ 
tained  and  preserved  for  the  future  production  of  such 
molds  and  records.  In  oarrying  my  invention  into  ef¬ 
fect,  I  prooeed  substantially  as  follows: 

A  suitable  master  record  is  f IrBt  made  on  a  re¬ 
cording  machine  having  a  specially  ooarse  thread  feed-screw 
and,  if  the  master  is  sufficiently  perfect  for  the  purpose 
a  mold  or  matrix  is  made  therefrom  by  any  well  known  pro¬ 
cess,  as,  for  oxample,  that  Indicated  in  my  patent  No. 
713,209,  of  November  11,  1902.  The  prooess  by  which  this 
matrix  or  mold  is  made  is  preferably  one  by  whioh  the 
matrix  or  mold  will  be  provided  with  a  non-oxidiaing  recori 
surface,  Buoh  as  gold  or  nickel,  so  that  it  will  be  very 


(5) 


pennanen-fc.  prom  the  matrix  or  mold  thus  made  I  obtain 
any  desired  nxuabor,  Bay  a  dosen  or  more,  of  duplicate 
records  or  sub-masters  by  any  suitable  process.  For 
example,  a  blank  may  be  shaved  very  true  so  as  to  fit 
accurately  within  the  matrix  or  mold,  and  be  then  expanded 
into  engagement  with  the  record  surface  of  the  matrix  or 
mold  by  boat  and  pressure,  as  I  describe  in  my  said  patent*, 
or,  instead,,  a  molten  wax-like  material  may  be  cast  in  the 
matrix  or  mold,  as  I  describe  in  my  patent  Ho.  667,662  of 
February  5,  1901;  or,  finally,  the  matrix  or  mold  may  be 
dipped  in  a  suitable  molten,  coagulable,  wax-like  material, 
which  forms  a  coagulated  layer  of  the  desired  thickness 
thereon,  as  described  in  patent  No.  683,615  granted 
October  1,  1901, to  Hiller  and  Aylsworth.  By  whatever 
process  that  may  be  followed  an  accurate  sub-master  will 
be  secured,  the  bore  of  which  need  not  bo  finished.  I 
aim  to  secure  oubmaBters  in  this  way  which  shall  corres¬ 
pond  accurately  with  masters  no?/  obtained  by  recording 
in  the  first  instance  thereon  in  special  recording  ma¬ 
chines;  and,  consequently,  the  original  or  main  mold  or 
matrix  should  be  much  longer  than  the  record  which  it  car- 
ries,  and  the  pitch  of  the  record  groove  therein  should 
be  so  selected  that  when  the  submasters  have  contracted 
longitudinally,  their  pitch  shall  correspond  with  that 
now  used  in  masters  made  directly  in  recording  machines. 
This  latter  pitch,  with  the  materials  now  used,  is  ninety- 
eight  and  two-thirdB  threads  per  inoh,  but  the  pitch  will 
vary  with  the  composition  employed  and  with  the  prooeBS 
followed,  as  to  temperature,  manipulations  otc. 


(4) 


Haring  obtained,  a  number  of  cubmasters  in  this 
way  which  correspond  accurately  with  masters  as  now  ob¬ 
tained  by  recording  directly  on  the  blank  in  a  suitable 
recording  machine,  the  main  matrix  or  mold  may  be  filed 
away.  It  will  not  be  required  for  further  use  during 
the  life  of  the  sub-molds  whose  production  I  will  now 
describe,  but  will  be  available  at  any  future  time  for 
the  production  of  additional  submasters  from  which  submolds 
may  be  made.  The  submolds  cr  matrices  are  produced  from 
the  submasters  by  any  suitable  process,  for  instance, 
those  indicated  in  my  patent  Ho.  713,209,  above  referred  to 
and  from  these  submolds  I  prooeed  to  obtain  duplicates  in 
the  usual  way,  as  indicated  in  the  several  patents  to 
which  attention  ha3  been  directed.  The  duplicates  so 
obtained,  when  finished  on  the  interior  and  onds,  are 
commercially  salable  duplicates,  comparing  favorably  with 
those  now  secured  in  the  art  from  a  matrix  or  mold  made 
from  a  master  obtained  directly  by  recording  in  the  first 
instance  in  a  special  recording  machine.  These  dupli¬ 
cates,  when  they  roach  thoir  normal  temperatures,  will 
possess  the  standard  pitch  of  thread  of  one  hundred  per 
inch,  and  will,  therefore,  bo  capable  of  effective  use 
in  standard  reproducing  machines  of  the  phonograph  type. 

It  is  obvious  that  aocordlng  to  my  invention  the 
number  of  duplicate  phonograph  records  whioh  can  be 
obtained  from  a  single  master  is  multiplied.  That  is  to 
say,  suppose  that  the  life  of  each  mold  is  limited  to 
on©  thousand  operations  -  then,  acoording  to  the  methods 
heretofore  known,  we  can  produce  only  one  thousand 
duplicate  copies  of  the  original  master,  assuming  the 


(5) 


same  to  have  been  destroyed  in  making  the  molds.  ThiB 
is  the  limit  to  the  number  of  duplicates  which  can  be 
produced  from  the  maBter  in  question  and  these  duplicates 
can  only  be  produced  successively.  According  to  my  in¬ 
vention,  however,  it  will  be  possible  to  produce  a 
thousand  sub-masters  from  the  main  mold,  to  produce  a  sub¬ 
mold  from  each  sub-master,  thereby  obtaining  a  thousand 
sub-molds,  and  then  produoe  from  these  sub-molds  one 
million  duplicate  sound  records,  eaoh  of  which  is  a  copy 
of  the  original  master,  and  in  the  same  space  of  time 
that  one  thousand  records  were  formerly  produced. 

Another  advantage  of  my  invention  is  that  the 
molding  of  the  sub-masters  can  be  done  with  great  oare 
by  the  most  skillful  workmen  so  that  the  main  mold  will 
not  be  injured  and  the  molding  from  the  sub-molds  can  be 
done  very  rapidly,  without  much  care,  or  by  comparatively 
unskilled  persons,  because  a  sub-mold  can  be  replaoed 
at  any  time  without  very  great  expense. 

Reference  is  hereby  made  to  the  accompanying 
drawing  which  shows  diagrammatioally  a  multiplication  of 
duplicate  sound  records  (standard  pitch)  from  a  single 
master  record,  according  to  the  process  herein  described 
and  claimed. 

Having  now  described  my  invention,  what  I  claim 
as  new  therein  and  desire  to  seoure  by  letters  patent  is 
as  follows: 

1.  The  prooess  of  multiplying  sound  recordB,  which 
consists  in  producing  a  suitable  master,  forming  a  matrix 
or  mold  therefrom,  molding  a  plurality  of  sub-masters 
from  said  mold,  forming  a  sub-matrix  or  sub-mold  from  eaoh 


(6) 


of  said  sub-masters,  and  then  molding  duplicate  Bound 
records  from  each  of  said  sub-matrioes  or  sub-molds, 
whereby  a  plurality  of  duplicate  sound  records  can  be 
obtained  simultaneously  and  the  production  thereof  is  not 
limited  by  the  life  of  the  molds  in  which  they  are  formed, 
substantially  as  set  forth. 

2.  The  process  of  multiplying  sound  reoords,  which 
consists  in  producing  a  suitable,  master  having  a  record 
groove  of  abnormally  coarse  pitch,  forming  a  matrix  or 
mold  therefrom,  molding  from  said  matrix  or  mold  a  plural¬ 
ity  of  sub-masters  of  less  pitch  than  that  of  said  master, 
forming  a  sub-matrix  or  sub-mold  from  each  of  said  sub¬ 
masters,  and  then;  molding  from  said  sub-matrices  or  sub¬ 
molds  duplicate  sound  reoords  of  standard  pitch,  which  is 
lesB  than  that  of  the  sub-masters,  whereby  a  plurality 

of  duplicate  sound  reoords  can  be  obtained  simultaneously 
from  the  same  master  and  the  production  thereof  is  not 
limited  to  the  life  of  the  molds  in  which  they  are  direot- 
ly  formed,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

3.  The  process  of  multiplying  Bound  records,  which 
consists  in  producing  a  suitable  master  of  coarse  pitoh, 
forming  a  matrix  or  mold  therefrom  of  the  same  pitoh, 
molding  a  plurality  of  sub-maaters  from  said  mold  of  a 
smaller  pitch,  forming  a  sub-matrix  or  Bub-mold  from  each 
of  Baid  sub-masters  and  of  the  same  pitoh,  and  then  mold¬ 
ing  duplicate  sound  reoords  of  a  still  smaller  pitoh  from 
each  of  said  sub-matrices  or  sub-molds,  whereby  a  plural¬ 
ity  of  duplicate  sound  reoords  can  be  obtained  simultan¬ 
eously  and  the  production  thereof  is  not  limited  by  the 
life  of  the  mold  in  which  they  are  formed,  substantially 


(7) 


as  set  forth. 


Respectfully, 

THOMAS  A.  EDISON 
By 

His  Attorney. 

Orange,  N.  J. 

April  Q>  ,  1910. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OPE ICE 


Thomas  A.  Edison 

PROCESS  OP  DUPLICATING 
PHONOGRAPH  RECORDS 

Piled  Nov.  3,  1903 
Serial  No.  179,716 


) 

) 

:  Before  the  Commiss- 

)  loner  of  Patents  in 

:  Person. 


brief  por  appellant. 


This  is  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the 
Board  of  Examiners-in-Chief  affirming  the  decision  of 
the  Examiner  in  finally  rejecting  the  claims  of  this 
application. 

Tho  claims,  the  rejection  of  which  is  hereby 
appealed  from,  are  as  follows: 


1.  The  process  of  multiplying  sound  records,  which 
consists  in  producing  a  suitable  master,  forming  a  matrix 
or  mold  therefrom,  molding  a  plurality  of  sub-masters  from 
said  mold,  forming  a  Bub-matrix  or  sub-mold  from  each  of 
said  sub-masters,  and  then  molding  duplicate  sound  records 
from  eaoh  of  said  sub-matrices  or  sub-molds,  whereby  a 
plurality  of  duplicate  sound  records  can  be  obtained 
simultaneously  and  the  production  thereof  is  not  limited 
oy  the  life  of  the  molds  in  which  they  are  formed,  sub¬ 
stantially  as  set  forth. 


2.  The  process  of  multiplying  sound  records,  which 
consists  in  producing  a  suitable  master  having  a  record 
groove  of  abnormally  coarse  pitoh,  forming  a  matrix  or 
mold  therefrom,  molding  from  said  matrix  or  mold  a  plur¬ 
ality  of  Sub-masters  of  lesB  pitoh  than  that  of  said  ' 
master,  forming  a  sub-matrix  or  Bub-mo Id  from  eaoh  of  said 
Bub-masterB,  and  then  molding  from  said  sub-matrices  or 
sub-molds  duplicate  sound  records  of  standard  pitoh,  which 
1b  leBB  than  that  of  the  sub-masters,  whereby  a  plurality 


(1) 


of  duplicate  sound  rooords  etui  be  obtained  eimultaneously 
from  tlio  same  master  and  the  production  thereof  is  not 
limited  to  the  life  of  the  molds  in  which  they  are  direot- 
ly  formed,  substantially  as  set  forth. 


J.  The  process  of  multiplying  sound  records,  which 
consists  in  producing  a  suitable  master  of  coarse  pitoh, 
forming  a  matrix  or  mold  therefrom  of  the  same  pitoh, 
molding  a  plurality  of  Bub-raasters  from  said  mold  of  a 
smaller  pitch,  forming  a  sub-matrix  or  sub-mold  from  each 
of  said  sub-masters  and  of  the  same  pitch,  and  then  mold¬ 
ing  duplicate  sound  records  of  a  still  smaller  pitch  from 
each  of  said  sub-matrioes  or  Bub-molds,  whereby  a  plurality 
of  duplicate  sound  records  con  be  obtained  simultaneously, 
and  the  production  thereof  is  not  limited  by  the  life  of 
the  mold  in  which  they  are  formed,  substantially  as  set 
forth. 


The  references  relied  upon  aro  patents  to 


Edison,  #667,662,  Feh.  5,  1901,  (181-16) 
Edison,  #657,527,  Sept.  11,  1900  (181-16) 
Anot ,  #539,212,  May  14,  1895,  (l8l-l6) 


BTATEOTHT  OF  TOT  CASE 

This  invention  is  a  simple  one,  but  one  of  con¬ 
siderable  importance.  It  consists  in  a  process  by  which 
molded  duplicate  phonograph  records  may  be  commercially 
produced  in  large  numbers  and  are  so  produced  at  the  manu¬ 
facturing  worts  in  which  the  appellant  is  chiefly  in¬ 
terested.  The  invention  consists  in  a  process  which  dis¬ 
tinguishes  from  known  processes  hy  the  interposition  of 
new  steps  therein.  The  question  to  he  decided  is  whether 
the  process  evolved  by  the  introduction  of  these  new  steps 
is  patentahly  different  from  the  old  processes,  that  is, 
whether  the  addition  of  the  new  steps  amounts  to  invontion 
or  not.  By  the  addition  of  these  now  Bteps,  a  rapid 
multiplication  of  the  original  phonograph  rooord  is 
achieved  in  the  production  of  duplicate  records.  These 


(2) 


atops  are  referred  to  In  the  first  of  the  claims,  for 
example,  whorein  after  the  statement  that  a  suitable  master 
record  is  first  produced  and  a  matrix  or  mold  formed  there¬ 
from,  it  is  then  stated  that  a  plurality  of  sub-masters 
are  molded  from  said  mold  and  a  Bub-matrix  or  sub-mold 
is  formed  from  eaoh  of  said  sub-masters..  She  duplicate 
sound  rooords  which  form  a  final  product  of  the  process 
are  molded  from  each  of  the  sub-matrioeB. 

Previous  to  appellant's  Invention  on  which  this 
application  was  filed  November  3,  1903,  the  process  of 
forming  duplicate  molded  phonograph  reoords  was  as  follows: 
A  master  reoord  was  made  by  a  singer  or  other  performer 
singing  into  the  horn  of  the  recording  phonograph,  whereby 
the  original  or  master  record  was  cut  in  the  Boft  surface 
of  the  wax  record.  Prom  this  a  matrix  or  mold  of  metal 
was  made  by  well  known  processes,  the  sound  record  being 
carried  in  relief ,  that  is,  reversed  upon  the  bore  of  the 
matrix.  The  duplicate  sound  reoords  which  wore  to  be 
sold  were  then  molded  directly  within  this  matrix  by  one 
of  several  well  known  prooeBses,  which  duplicate  record 
was  removed  from  the  mold  by  cooling  the  record  sufficient¬ 
ly  to  contract  the  same  so  that  it  might  be  withdrawn  from 
the  mold  longitudinally.  In  this  way  a  number  of  reoordB, 
perhaps  one  thousand,  might  be  produced  successively  from 
the  matrix.  The  matrix,  however,  deteriorated  during  the 
process  from  friction  and  use,  the  sound  reoord  being  ex¬ 
ceedingly  delicate,  so  that  at  the  end  of  possibly  one 
thousand  duplications  the  mold  was  unfit  for  further  use. 
ThiB  prooess  was  well  enough  for  a  small  output  of  records, 
but  it  obviously  was  entirely  unsuitable  for  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  reoords  upon  the  tremendous  scale  to  which  appell- 


(3) 


ant's  business  had  developed  some  time  before  the  concep¬ 
tion  of  the  invention  upon  which  this  application  was 
filed. 

This  situation  could  be  relieved  in  a  number  of 
ways.  A  numbor  of  matrioes  might  be  formed  from  the 
original  master  record  and  duplicates  molded  from  each 
of  these  matrices.  Shis,  however,  could  not  be  depended 
upon,  since  the  original  or  master  record  which  was  formed 
of  quite  soft  wax  was  liable  to  injury  in  removing  it 
from  the  mold,  and  honce,  no  one  master  record  oould  be 
depended  upon  to  form  more  than  one  porfeot  matrix.  Or 
again,  a  number  of  original  master  reoords  might  be  formed 
by  causing  the  singer  to  repeat  his  performance  a  number 
of  times.  This  was  the  practice  v/hioh  was  adopted  at 
appellant' 3  work3  before  tho  date  of  this  invention.  The 
singer  had  to  make  a  good  many  trials  before  he  succeeded 
in  producing  a  sound  record  which  waB  sufficiently  perfect 
to  serve  as  a  master.  In  the  case  of  a  popular  selection 
the  singer  would  have  to  repeat  his  performance  over  and 
over  again.  Some  time  prior  to  appellant's  invention, 
eaoh  performer  at  the  Edison  Phonograph  Works  made  five 
or  six  reoordB  of  eaoh  selection,  v/hioh  necessitated  sing¬ 
ing  the  pieoe  a  great  many  times.  Shortly  bofore  appell¬ 
ant's  invention,  the  demand  for  duplicate  phonograph  rec¬ 
ords  grew  enormously.  A  large  number  of  duplicates  had 
periodically  to  be  produced  in  a  short  time,  since  new 
selections  are  put  on  the  market  once  every  month.  In 

this  limited  time  it  was  impossible  to  make  a  sufficient 
even 

number  of  duplicates  from/rive  or  six  master  records  and 
matriosB  formed  therefrom,  and  ofteh-as  many-as  10  or  15 


(4) 


original  records  had  to  he  produoed  by  the  performer  of 
a  popular  selection  in  order  to  meet  tho  demand  for  that 
record.  It  is,  of  course,  obvious  that  in  a  task  of  suoh 
magnitude  tho  singer's  voice  deteriorated  and  the  differ¬ 
ent  master  records  produced  would  not  ho  all  of  equal 
excellence.  It  is  also  obvious  that  a  high-priced  artist 
of  the  calihi’o  of  Slezak  and  Caruso  could  not  ho  expected 
to  devote  time  and  onorgy  to  making  such  an  enormous  number 
of  trials  for  the  production  of  one  given  selection. 

In  spite  of  the  imperfections  of  the  practioe 
above  described,  no  bet-cer  procedure  was  known  until 
appellant's  invention,  and  this  practice  was  carried  on 
prior  to  that  time  at  appellant's  works  and  in  the  works 
of  all  other  sound  record  manufacturers  to  the  heat  of 
appellant's  knowledge  and  belief.  To  meet  this  situation, 
appellant  conceived  the  idea  of  a  process  in  which  a  cingle 
perfect  master  record  might  be  duplicated  by  a  rapid 
multiplication.  As  stated,  up  to  this  time  a  thousand 
records  for  example  had  been  formed  from  one  matrix  made 
from  a  perfect  master,  or  even  fdf  teen  thousand  duplicates 
had  been  fanned  from  fifteen  matrices  formed  from  fifteen 
masters  more  or  less  perfect.  Appellant's  invention 
introduced  a  multiplying  factor  into  the  proooss.  A 
plurality  of  perfect  records  tenned  sub-masters  are  molded 
with  great  care  from  the  one  perfect  matrix  formed  from  the 
original  master  reoord.  As  stated,  there  might  be  a 
thousand  of  these  sub-master  records  made.  Prom  each  of 
these  sub-masters  one  matrix  or  mold  known  as  a  sub- 
matrix  is  made.  Then  from  eaoh  one  of  tho  thousand  sub- 
matrioos  a  thousand  commercial  duplicate  records  might,  be 
formed  or  one  million  records  in  all,  the  thousand  sub- 


(5) 


matrices  all  perhaps  being  used  in  the  molding  of  dupli¬ 
cate  commercial  reoordB  at  the  same  time. 

NOVELTY  03?  THE  INVENTION  shown  by  the 
HE3?ERBHC3j!S  CITED 

This  result  is  not  even  hinted  at  in  the  prior 
art,  an  examination  of  which  will  disclose  the  fact  the 
the  insertion  of  the  multiplying  factor  into  the  process, 
the  formation  of  a  plurality  of  sub-masters  and  sub-matri¬ 
ces  from  which  the  duplicates  are  to  be  formed,  waB  origi¬ 
nal  with  appellant. 

PAT33HT  TO  35DISON  BO.  667.662 

Edison's  prior  patent  Ho.  667,662  merely  shows 
one  of  the  processes  known  at  the  date  of  the  present  in¬ 
vention  for  forming  duplicates  from  an  original  record. 

In  this  process  a  mold  was  made  from  a  master  record  and 
the  duplicate  records  molded  in  this  mold  by  introducing 
molten  material  into  the  mold  around  a  core,  allowing  the 
molten  material  to  set,  contracting  the  said  material,  and 
removing  the  record  thus  formed  together  with  the  core 
from  the  mold  and  separating  the  oore  from  the  molded 
record.  The  3bcaminer  sayB  in  his  statement  that  the 
record  bo  formed  is  identical  with  what  applicant  toms 
his  Bub-master,  and  that  invention  cannot  be  involved  in 
merely  duplicating  the  duplicate  records  so  made.  More 
will  be  said  upon  tills  point  hereafter. 

PATENT  TO  EDISON  NO.  657.527 

Patent  to  Edison  No.  657,527  provides  for  the 
making  from  the  original  master  record  of  a  single  raetall- 


(6) 


Iio  auplioate  reoora  by  electro-deposition  upon  the  inter¬ 
ior  of  a  matrix  formea  from  the  original  record.  The 
metallic  duplicate  record  so  formed  1b  then  used  as  a 
master  reoora  in  plaoe  of  the  original  wax  master,  the 
patent  contemplating  the  production  of  duplicate  reoords 
from  this  metallic  master  record  by  a  process  of  mechani¬ 
cal  copying  similar  to  the  well  known  pantograph.  Only 
a  single  metallic  duplioate  record  was  thus  formed  from 
the  wax  master,  since  the  mold  which  was  formed  from  the 
wax  master  and  in  which  the  metallic  duplicate  was  made 
had  to  be  dissolved  in  soid  and  entirely  deotroyed  in 
order  that  the  metallio  master  record  might  bo  extracted 
from  the  interior  thereof.  It  would  be  impossible  to 
make  a  plurality  of  sub-matrices  from  this  metallic  masted, 
sinoe  they  could  not  bo  separated  therefrom  without  des¬ 
troying  the  metallic  mastor,  and  no  suoh  idea  was  in  the 
mind  of  the  patentee.  Thus  this  patent  does  not  dis- 
olose  appellant's  multiplying  step  any  more  than  does 
the  Edison  patent  first  discussed.  Tho  Examiner  states 
that  this  patent  discloses  one  way  of  duplicating  from  a 
duplicate.  The  hoard  of  Examiners-in-Chief  also  state 
that  there  would  seem  to  be  no  invention  in  carrying  this 
step  into  the  molded  record  art.  More  will  be  Baid  on 
this  point  hereafter,  but  it  may  here  bo  noted  that  it 
would  be  impossible  to  carry  this  step  into  the  molded 
record  art  from  the  disclosure  of  the  patent  olted,  sinoe 
only  one  metallic  duplicate  record  could  be  formed  in 
accordance  with  the  patent,  and  henae  it  would  bo  impos¬ 
sible  to  form  a  plurality  of  sub-matrices  or  sub-masters 
from  either  of  whioh  duplicate  records  might  be  formed 
with  multiplication. 


(7) 


PATBNT  TO  AMBIT  HO.  539.212 

Patent  to  .Amet  No.  539,212,  whicli  is  the  remain¬ 
ing  reference  in  the  case,  merely  discloses  the  fact  that 
it  is  old  to  obtain  copies  of  eh  original  record  by  a 
process  of  meohonical  transference,  the  movements  of  the 
stylus  which  tracks  the  record  groove  of  the  original  or 
master  record  being  reproduced  with  amplification  by  a 
system  of  linkages -connected  to  the  recording  stylus  whioh 
travels  over  a  rotating  phonograph  blank.  By  this  means 
a  copy  of  the  original  record  is  made,  whioh  oopy  is  somo¬ 
v/hat  larger  than  the  original  record  because  of  the  lever¬ 
age,  that  is,  the  fact  that  levers  are  used  in  the  con¬ 
nections  between  the  two  styluses.  Shis  does  not  seem  to 
be  at  all  pertinent  to  the  invention  in  issue,  and  the 
Board  of  Examlners-in-Chief  do  not  allude  to  it  in  their 
opinion.  The  Hxaminer  in  his  statement  says  that  Amet 
discloses  an  enlarged  record  from  which  duplicates  of 
normal  size  may  be  made.  This  is  thought  to  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  issue. 

consideration  ot  Jim  claims 

Considering  first  Claim  1,  whioh  is  In  terms 
the  broadest  of  the  claims,  it  will  be  noted  that  a  plural¬ 
ity  of  sub-masters  are  molded  from  the  one  main  mold, 
which  in  the  art  is  known  as  the  "mother"  mold  and  sub- 
matrices  or  sub-molds  formed  from  each  of  said  Bub-masters, 
and  the  duplicate  sound  records  molded  from  eaoh  of  the 
sub-matrices  or  sub-moldB.  It  is  evident  that  none  of 
the  references  discloses  all  the  steps  of  this  process, 
nor  can  any  or  all  of  the  references  be  combined  to  pro¬ 
vide  the  steps  of  the  prooess. 

(8) 


ERROR  ON  Tlffl  EXAMINER  AND  THE  BOARD  CONCERNINQ 


DUELICATIOH  OF  COMMERCIAL  RECORDS 

In  the  opinion  of  the  Board  of  Examiners- in- 
Chief  ooours  the  following:  "It  Js  pointed  out  by  the 

Examiner  that  commercial  records  are  commonly  used  to 
make  matrioes,  which  practice  seems  to  us  to  involve  the 
process  here  claimed,  it  being  immaterial  patentably 
whether  one  or  a  plurality  of  secondary  matrices  are 
employed."  This  statement,  as  broadly  worded,  iB 
thought  to  be  an  error  both  in  the  statement  of  fact  and 
conclusion  of  law.  It  is  not  the  common  praotice,  nor 
is  it  possible  to  buy  on  the  market  duplicate  phonograph 
records,  that  is,  cylindrical  sound  reoordB,  form  matrices 
therefrom,  and  then  form  duplicate  records  in  Baid  ma¬ 
trices  which  may  be  used  as  duplicate  records  adapted 
for  sale.  This  is  because  the  duplicate  record  which 
might  be  obtained  and  used  as  a  master  for  the  production 
of  a  mold  and  duplication  therefrom  has  a  record  groove 
having  a  standard  number  of  threads  per  inch,  say  100 
threads  per  inch,  and  the  duplicate  records  formed  there¬ 
from  would  have  a  greater  number  of  threads  per  inch, 
about  lOl-l/j  threads  per  inch,  because  qf  the  shrink¬ 
age  of  the  wax  in  molding  and  extraction  of  the  record. 
Accordingly,  the  record  so  made  could  not  be  repro¬ 
duced  upon  any  of  the  existing  talking  machines  whioh 
are  adapted  to  play  reoords  having  100  or  200  threads  per 
inch.  Even  if  it  were  true  that  the  praotice  referred 
to  by  the  Examiner  were  possible,  it  would  not  involve 


(9) 


appellant's  Invention  oinoe  it  would  merely  involve  the 
duplication  of  one  duplicate  of  a  reoord,  and  not  the 
duplication  of  a  plurality  of  duplicates  of  a  reoord, 
such  as  the  plurality  of  sub-masters  provided  by  appell¬ 
ant,  whereby  a  multiplication  of  the  reoord  is  achieved. 
It  may  be  that  in  the  case  of  disc  sound  records,  a 
duplicate  sound  reoord  may  be  copied  in  the  manner 
referred  to  by  the  Examiner,  but  aB  stated,  the  process 
under  consideration  would  not  there  be  involved,  since 
a  duplicator  would  presumably  make  a  mold  of  only  one 
duplicate  of  a  given  reoord,  and  not  a  plurality  of 
molds  from  a  plurality  of  duplicates  of  the  same  record, 
from  which  multiplied  commercial  duplicates  might  be  ob¬ 
tained.  There  is  no  suggestion  in  the  record  that 
this  has  ever  been  done,  and  it  is  thought  to  be  not 
immaterial,  as  stated  by  the  Board,  but  decidedly 
material  patontably  whether  one  or  a  plurality  of  second¬ 
ary  matrices  are  employed. 

Claims  2  and  3  point  out  even  more  distinctly 
why  it  is  impossible  that  the  invention  be  anticipated 
by  tho  praotice  of  duplicating  duplicates  referred  to 
by  the  Examiner,  since  in  Claims  2  and  3,  a  master 
record  is  stated  to  be  formed  which  has  a  reoord  groove 
of  abnormally  coarse  pitch,  the  mold  or  matrix  formed 
therefrom,  which  is  the  "mother"  mold,  a  plurality  of 
sub-masters  of  Iosb  pitch  than  that  of  Bald  master 
molded  from  the  mother  mold  or  matrix,  a  sub-matrix  or 


(10) 


Bub-mold  formed  from  each  of  said  sub-masters,  and  the 
duplicate  sound  records  formed  from  Bald  sub-matrices, 
the  duplicate  sound  records  being  of  standard  pitch, 
which  is  less  than  that  of  the  sub-masters.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  as  is  pointed  out  in  appellant's  brief 
before  the  Examiners- in-Chief ,  the  duplicate  records 
contemplated  by  appellant's  invention  have  a  pitch  of 
one  hundred  threads  per  inch,  the  sub-masters,  from 
which  the  duplicate  records  are  formed,  have  a  pitch 
somewhat  coarser  than  one  hundred  threads  to  the  inch, 
or  approximately  ninety-eight  and  two-thirds  threads 
per  inch,  and  the  original  master  itself  has  a  still 
coarser  pitch  of  approximately  ninety  seven  and  one- 
third  threads  per  inch.  As  has  been  stated  by  the 
Board,  the  patent  to  EdiBon  No.  667,662  states  that 
the  master  must  be  larger  or  of  coarser  pitch  than  the 
desired  record  to  allow  for  shrinkage,  and  since 
appellant  must  get  to  his  final  product  in  two  mold¬ 
ing  steps,  he  must,  of  course,  allow  for  two  shrink¬ 
ages  instead  of  one,  and  must  make  his  molds  of  corres¬ 
ponding  pitch.  The  inclusion  of  theBe  limitations  in 
Claims  2  and  5,  however,  clearly  aid  in  differentiating 
the  same  from  any  suoh  practioe  as  mentioned  by  the 
Examiner,  namely,  that  of  duplicating  a  duplicate 
record,  since  appellant  does  not  duplicate  an  ordinary 
duplicate  record,  but  a  record  of  abnormally  ooarse 


(11) 


I  pitch,  whioh  oould  not  bo  used  as  a  oommeroial  dupli- 

Ioate.  Henoo,  the  Btatomont  of  the  Examiner  that  inso¬ 
far  as  tho  claimed  dovioes  are  concerned,  appellant's 
sub-master  is  nothing  more  than  tho  oommeroial  dupli- 

Icate  record  commonly  sold  on  the  market  is  inoorroot. 

ERROR  OR  THE  BXMINERS,IH_OHIEg  AS  TO 
|  EDI S OH  PATENT  HO. 657, 527. 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  the 
Examiners -in-Chief  were  in  error  in  holding  that  patent 
to  Edison  Ho.  657,527  might  instruct  an  inventor  in 
the  molded  reoord  art  as  to  the  proper  way  to  proooed 
to  overcome  tho  difficulty  which  appellant  met  by  the 
invention  in  issue.  Edison,  in  tho  patent  referred 
to,  formed  a  single  metallic  duplicate  from  the  original 
mold,  and  could  form  only  one  by  the  process  dosoribed. 
Erom  this  one  metallic  duplioate,  commercial  dupli¬ 
cates  might  be  made  by  a  process  of  mechanical  trans¬ 
ference,  such  as  shown  in  patent  to  Amet,  Ho.  539,212, 
but  this  v/ould  givo  absolutely  no  instruction  to  any 
one  desiring  to  increase  the  rapidity  of  production  of 
duplicates  of  molded  records,  as  has  been  pointed  out 
above,  on'  page  7  of  this  brief. 


(12) 


INVENTIONS  OF  SIMILAR  CHARACTER  HAVE  REPEATEDLY 
BEEN  HELD  PATENTABLE. 

It  is  thought  that  appellant's  position  will 
now  he  dear  to  your  Honor.  The  invention  is  a  simple 
one,  hut  it  is  novel,  of  great  utility,  and  because  of  its 
great  commercial  suooess  and  the  fact  that  it  v/as  vainly 
sought  for  a  considerable  length  of  time  by  different  in¬ 
ventors  and  had  not  been  discovered  by  any  before  appell¬ 
ant's  invention*  it  is  thought  to  be  patentable.  As  to 
the  novelty  of  the  process,  it  will  be  conceded  that  the 
steps  of  providing  a  plurality  of  sub-masters  and  forming 
sub-matrices  therefrom  have  not  been  suggested  by  otherB. 
The  deoisions  are,  of  course,  uniform  that  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  one  new  step  into  a  process  makes  a  new  process 
thereof.  See  Carnegie  Steel  Co.  vs.  Cambria  Iron  Co., 

C.  D.,  1902,  592,  a  decision  of  the  U.  S.  Supreme  Court, 
and  Ex  parte  Patterson,  C.  D.  1905,  230.  As  to  the 
utility  of  the  process,  the  difficulties  whioh  appellant 
and  his  manufacturing  company  experienced  prior  to  this 
invention  have  been  noted  above.  If  it  is  deemed  desir¬ 
able,  appellant  can  furnish  affidavits  on  this  point. 

A  few  deoisions  which  are  persuasive  of  the  invention  in 
this  oase  may  well  be  briefly  called  to  your  Honor's 
attention. 

In  Carnegie  Steel  Co.  vs.  Cambria  Iron  Co. 
referred  to,  the  TJ.  S.  Supreme  Court  held  that  invention 
was  Involved  in  the  JoneB  process  of  mixing  molten  metal 
to  secure  uniformity  of  the  same  preparatory  to  further 
treatment,  the  novel  step  in  the  process  involving  the 


(13) 


! 


use  of  a  reservoir  of  large  size  in  which  the  product  of 
a  number  of  furnaces  was  mixed  and.  allowed  to  become  uni¬ 
form,  portions  only  of  the  composite  molten  contents  of 
the  receptacle  being  removed,  from  time  to  time  for  further 
treatment  without  entirely  draining  the  reservoir.  The 
prior  art  Bhowed  that  it  was  old  to  provide  similar 
reservoirs,  but  no  one  had  seen  that  such  reservoirs 
might  be  made  sufficiently  large  and  the  process  carried 
out  by  the  aid  of  the  same  to  produce  the  result  achieved 


by  the  patentee.  The  Court  considered  that  the  fact  that 


a  simple  matter,  had  produced  a  great  practical  success, 


demonstrated  the  patentability  of  the  invention.  As 
the  Court  observed,  a  procoBB  patent  can  only  be  antici¬ 
pated  by  a  similar  process.  "It  1b  not  sufficient  to 
show  a  piece  of  mechanism  by  which  the  process  might  have 
been  performed."  The  Supreme  Court  defined  the  situation 
as  follows: 

"It  is  true  the  Jones  patent  is  a  simple  one 
and  in  the  light  of  present  experience  it  Beems  strange 
that  none  of  the  expert  stool  makers  who  approached  so 
near  the  consummation  of  their  desire,  Bhould  have  failed 
to  take  the  final  Btep  which  was  needed  to  convert  their 
experiments  into  an  assured  success.  This,  however,  is 
but  the  common  history  of  important  Inventions,  the  sim¬ 
plicity  of  which  seems  to  the  ordinary  observer  to  pre¬ 
clude  the  possibility  of  their  involving  an  exerciBe  of 
the  inventive  faculty.  The  very  fact  that  the  attempt 
which  had  been  made  to  secure  a  uniformity  of  produot 
seems  to  have  been  abandoned  after  the  Jones  invention 
oarae  into  popular  notice,  is  strong  evidence  tending  to 
show  that  this  patent  oontain$1something  which  was  of 
great  value  to  the  manufacturers  of  steel,  and  which  en¬ 
titled  Jones  to  the  reward  due  to  a  successful  inventor.1 


It  would  seem  that  this  situation  was  on  all 
fours  with  that  presented  by  the  present  case,  Appellant's 
invention  has  achieved  tremendous  practical  suoosbs,  and 
since  his  invention  the  former  practice  of  manufacturing 


(14) 


molded  duplicate  records  has  been  abandoned.  As  was  well 
stated  by  the  Court  in  Goss  Printing  Press  Co.  v.  Scott, 
108  P.  R.  253,  on  page  261 

"It  is  not  nearness  to  an  unsolved  problem,  but 
a  solution  of  it,  that  secures  practical  results,  and 
benefits  the  publio  to  the  extent  of  earning  the  grant 
of  a  patent  in  return." 

The  Examiner  seems  to  be  of  the  opinion  that 
appellant's  Invention  amounts  only  to  a  duplication  of 
steps  or  a  change  in  degree,  which  oannot  amount  to  in¬ 
vention.  However,  it  is  well  settled  that  a  change  in 
proportion  or  size  or  degree,  or  a  duplication  of  Bteps 
or  parts  does  involve  invention  when  a  new  function  is 
attained  or  a  new  or  better  result  obtained,  or  the  same 
result  attained  in  a  more  economical  and  efficient  manner. 
In  the  case  of  Goss  Printing  Press  Co.  vs.  Soott,  above 
olted,  an  invention  in  printing  presses  was  held  to  be 
patentable,  in  which,  apparently,  the  patentee  only 
took  the  presses  which  he  found  standing  side  by  side  and 
banked  them  one  upon  another,  it  being  contended  that  the 
change  involved  was  a  reconstruction,  rearrangement  and 
duplioation.  The  Court  helii  that  this  change  was  one, 
which  though  simple,  produced  a  vastly  more  .efficient 
result  and  was  accordingly  patentable.  As  the  Court 
stated: 

"The  test  in  such  cases  is  not  whether  dupli¬ 
cation  exists,  but  whether  duplication  produces,  not  more 
duplication  of  product  or  funotlon,  but  a  new  unitary 
additional,  result,  and  not  the  mere  aggregate  of  prior, 
separate  mechanism."  Parker  v.  Hulme,  1  Pish.  Pat. 

Cas.  44,  Ped.  Cas.  Ho.  10,740. 

Appellant's  invention  produces  a  new  result, 
namely,  the  production  of  a  great  number  of  better  reoordB 
in  a  shorter  time  than  was  previously  possible. 

In  the  case  of  Zinsser  v.  Kremor,  39  P.  R., 

Ill,  the  Court  stated: 


(15) 


"  ’To  think  it  way  safely  ho  said  that  wherever  a 
change  in  the  method  of  making  an  article  of  manufacture 
produces  a  different  and  bonoficial  reBUlt,  although  the 
difforenoe  conoiote  only  in  improving  or  cheapening  ’the 
article,  and  the  change  and  its  advantages  had  not  b^eii 
seen  or  made  by  others  (than  the  patentoe)  interested  in 
seeing  and  making  it,  there  is  sufficient  evidence  of  '  • 
invention  to  sustain  a  prooo3s  patent.  Here  the  efJeeV 
of  the  change  is  to  improve  and  also  to  cheapen.  ”  V 


'  i 

Appellant's  invention  both  cheapens  and  improves 
the  product  by  the  addition  of  the  new  step  in  the  process, 
The  remarks  of  the  Court  in  the  oase  of  Guarantee 
Trust  &  Safe  Deposit  Co.  vs.  Hew  Haven  Gas  Light  Co.,  39 
F.R.  368  are  also  pertinent.  In  that  oase,  in  a  process 
for  making  gas,  the  substitution  of  the  fixing  ohamber  of 
one  patent  for  the  fixing  ohamber  of  another  patent  where¬ 
by  an  Improved  result  was  attained  was  considered  patent- 
able  invention.  The  Court  eaid: 


I"  But  the  inquiry  is  whether  the  adaptability  of 
the  Siemane  superheater  to  fix  the  gas  of  the  Harknbse 
patent  was  self-evident  to  the  intelligence  cf  those 
skilled  in  the  art.  If  it  had  been,  why  waB  not  the  sub¬ 
stitution  made?  ***««♦*  **««•»  ***  +  <.*** 

If  the  making  of  this  change  had  been  an  obvious  thing, 
falling  within  tho  range  of  ordinary  meohanioal  adapta¬ 
tion,  it  is  probable  that  those  skilled  in  the  art  would 
have  sought  to  avail  themselves  of  its  advantages;  yet, 
as  appears  by  tho  prior  patents  in  the  reoord,  the  more 
expensive  method  of  fixing  the  gas  in  retorts  heated  by 
external  firea  was  everywhere  followed.  The  various 
manufacturers  in  this  country  who  were  making  gas  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Teosie  du  Motay  process,  and  using  the  oxter- 
nally  fired  retort,  did  not  discover  what' is  now  asserted 
was  an  obvious  thing.  The  fact  that  the  older  organi¬ 
zations  which  it  1b  now  olaimed  were  susceptible  of  being 
modified  by  mere  meohanioal  skill  into  the  apparatus  of 
the  patent  remained  without  any  suoh  modification  until 
the  patentee  made  it,  and  his  improvement  when  made  was 
eo  useful  and  valuable  as  to  commend  itself  at  onoe  to 
those  skilled  in  the  art  to  whioh  it  relates,  is  suffi¬ 
cient  to  resolve  any  doubt  whether  the  improvement  embodies 
invention  in  favor  of  the  patent.  " 


In  the  matter  of  Ex  parte  Ralteyer  et  al.  C.,D. , 
1891,  302,  a  prooeee  for  preparing  Portland  Cement  was 


(16) 


held  to  he  patentable  because  of  a  new  process  step  which 
consisting  in  testing  a  portion  of  the  mass  after  the 
materials  are  mixed  in  order  to  determine  proportions. 

The  then  Commissioner  of  Patents  quoted  Cochrane  vs. 

Deener,  94  U.  S.  780,  and  held  that  one  of  the  stops  of 
the  process  being  novel  for  the  purposes  in  hand,  novelty 
was  given  to  the  process  considered  as  a  whole.  He 
said: 

"The  process  in  question  is  a  very  simple  one; 
but  simplicity  does  not  negative  invention.  That  the 
results  of  this  simple  process  are  useful  in  a  high  degree 
sufficiently  appears.  This  marked  utility  in  result, 
coupled  with  this  novel  process,  iB  in  my  opinion  suffic¬ 
ient  evidence  of  patentability. " 

As  to  the  point  that  a  change  in  degree,  such  as 
the  substitution  of  a  plurality  of  sub-raaBters  and  sub¬ 
matrices  for  a  common  duplicate  record  and  matrix  formed 
therefrom  for  the  production  therefrom  of  commercial  dupli¬ 
cate  records,  may  amount  to  invention  where  an  improved 
result  is  attained,  attention  may  also  be  directed  to 
Wostinghouse  Air  Brake  Co.  vs.  Christensen  Engineering  Co., 
123  E.  R.,  306,  in  which  the  change  in  size  of  a  train 
pipe  air  passage  was  the  only  new  feature,  and  the  oase  of 
Weston  Electrical  Instrument  Co.  vs.  Stevens,  134  E.  R., 
574,  in  which  the  only  change  was  a  different  proportion¬ 
ing  of  the  coilB  of  an  electrical  measuring  device,  where¬ 
by  an  improved  result  was  attained.  The  patent  waB 
sustained  in  eaoh  oase. 


Appellant's  process  is  novel,  useful,  and  in¬ 
volves  invention,  and  hence  the  patent  prayed  for  should 
be  granted.  The  novelty  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the 

(1?) 


I  references  fail  to  disclose  a  process  in  which  duplicate 
sound  records  are  molded  by  providing  a  plurality  of  sub¬ 
molds  and  the  so-oalled  sub-matrioes  formed  from  a  single 
perfect  mold  and  from  which  duplicate  records  are  formed 
with  gr